Quantcast
Channel: Malinda Words
Viewing all 2513 articles
Browse latest View live

If no one is to be left behind…

$
0
0
My first experience with a ‘sports meet’ was in 1970 when my older brother, then in the first grade was readied for a fancy dress parade by our mother, her sister and the sister’s boyfriend.  There was a lot of fussing around which I didn’t understand.  He was dressed as a Berec battery.  ‘Berec’ then was a household name and he looked quite a battery.  It was when I entered school that I understood what the fuss was about.  When I was in Grade 1, a classmate, Gihan Wijeratne, dressed as a bride, won the first prize.  I remember that there were races, but that’s all a blur. 

Sports meets became less frill and more competition as the years went by.  I wasn’t an athlete, only an enthusiastic spectator.  I returned to ‘sports meets’ after a lapse of several decades when my daughters entered school.  They are enthusiastic and their enthusiasm outstrips ability for the most part.  It’s a parents-must-be-there thing and so every year I go to see them run and, as they grew older, cheer. 
Each year, I’ve silently rooted for the girl who seemed most unlikely to win, and I suppose like most spectators felt for the one who tripped and fell, the one whose lime fell off the spoon many times and yet finished the race and of course for the ‘Special Needs’ kids who took part, as competitive as any other girl. 

This year, I was late and I had to leave early too, but I was there long enough to take two strong impressions away.  There was a dance item performed by two groups, one Kandyan and one Karnatic.  There was laudable synchronicity.  The music, at least part of it, sounded ‘Western’.  ‘Seamless’ is the word that came to mind.  An earlier dance item had conditioned me to accept this ‘harmony’ as an integral part of the way Ladies’ College does things. 
That item was performed by the ‘special needs’ children.  Among the trainers, I later found out, was a young girl who herself had attended the ‘special needs’ program of the school.  They were as synchronized as those who performed the more stylized dance item a few minutes later.  They received the loudest applause.    

What touched me most was what happened as they walked-skipped off the ground.  The Principal, Nirmali Wickramasinghe took the microphone and called out their names, each one of them.  Some were still basking in the after-glow of performance and applause.  Some were looking for their parents. Some had to be taken by hand and led to the Principal who distributed special certificates to them.  She hugged each of them, demonstrating affection that I’ve only seen offered the very young. 
I’ve heard the line ‘no one should be left behind’ in discourses on education.  Easy to say, I’ve often told myself.  This is ‘inclusive education’.  Inclusive, most of all, because dignity is clearly considered a cornerstone of the entire process.  The school and the rest of the student population don’t treat these students as ‘special’ or objects of curiosity and by this very fact make the process extra special. 

Most importantly, by recruiting people who are impaired in some way to help these children who need very special instruction, the school has demonstrated that it is not enough to create a wholesome environment of learning but it is equally important to find ways of making post-school life meaningful.  It is time, Mrs. Wickramasinghe said, that the corporates get creative in finding ways that those who graduate from these programs can be useful to society in some manner.  Three of the instructors are themselves impaired.  They teach art, dance and handwork.  That’s a ‘yes we can’ story right there. 
The ‘houses’ were beautifully decorated, like in any sports meet of any school, way back in the 70s and right now.  There were breathtaking performances, come-from-behind wins and wonderful athleticism overall.  A few years from now it will all be a blur, the races and the cheering, the decorated houses and the cheers.  I don’t remember the faces of the kids who slipped a few years ago (they grow so fast!) and a few years from now I might not remember the names of the houses either.  But the expression on a teacher’s face and the joy evidenced by a student’s broad smile will take some forgetting. Hopefully ‘unforgettables’ such as this would prompt all of us to think more seriously about simple things like ‘no one should be left behind’ and of course what ‘inclusivity’ really means. 

It cannot be just a momentary embrace, a tear-jerker of a photograph and a nice story to write.   To leaving no one behind, we have to hold things closer to the heart, one another too.  It’s as simple as that. 

Faraz Shauketaly’s ‘revelations’

$
0
0
Faraz Shauketaly suffered gunshot injuries and was rushed to hospital a little over a week ago.  Faraz, who holds dual citizenship, in Sri Lanka and Britain, is a freelance journalist.  He is also a businessman who runs a hotel in Mount Lavinia.  The way the incident was ‘picked up’ by the media and others, including those who talk of human rights and media freedom speaks volumes of related politics.  Faraz was shot at by unidentified gunmen. 

‘The Daily Mail’ privileged Faraz’ ‘British citizenship’ in the story on the incident.  Navi Pillay of the UNHRC picked up on the ‘journalist’ element of his identity.  Sri Lanka bashers salivated about media freedom.  The local media duly condemned, again because this was a member of the tribe.
Everyone jumped the gun, so to speak.  Fingers were pointed at the President and the Government.  Faraz, now on his way to recovery, has thanked the President for all the support extended immediately upon hearing of the attack. 

Those with egg on the face may very well say ‘His statement was made under duress’.   This would of course amount to someone saying ‘I know better than Faraz what goes on in Faraz’ head’. 
The point is that people wear many hats and until investigations are concluded we cannot determine the name of the hat that warranted the aim-and-shoot.   Should the media be ‘perturbed’ only when a fellow media person is attacked, treating other attacks as per the newsworthiness (for the most part)?  Is Faraz Shauketaly the businessman made of heart, blood, vein, bone, sinew etc., that are different from what makes Faraz Shauketaly the freelance journalist? 

Not too long ago, Colombo Telegraph revealed that the late Lasantha Wickramatunga, then Editor of the Sunday Leader had a professional life outside that of being a professional journalist.  Colombo Telegraph hinted that Lasantha was killed on account of those ‘professional’ activities.  Lasantha, however, received many accolades posthumously for ‘journalistic courage’ and for ‘laying down his life in the course of being a journalist’.
There are certain conclusions we can draw.

First of all, there is an unholy and scandalous readiness to interpret events in Sri Lanka in a particular matter.  Trigger-happy is a term we can use.   It points to a penchant for sentencing without trial.  There is a strange readiness to up the ‘media’ strain of a person’s identity, if that is possible.  Makes better ‘news’, one supposes.  It sounds better when you say ‘a journalist was killed’ as opposed to ‘a spy was killed’, especially if you want to point the finger at a regime you want overthrown.
More importantly, there is another element to the context that makes for such outrageous and irresponsible claims, i.e. quite apart from political hate: the fact that attacks on journalists (especially those whose ‘journalistic hat’ is more of an identity marker than anything else) have not been investigated to conclusion.  

Lasantha, for example, did not die in a shoot-out. He was murdered.  The reason for murder is irrelevant except of course to the extent that ‘motive’ helps identify murderer(s).  What is pertinent is that it is the duty of the state to ensure that all citizens are protected.  Whether or not Lasantha was involved in something shady is also irrelevant.  If he violated the law, then the law enforcement agencies should have arrested him.  There is a thing called ‘due process’.
The case remains ‘open’. That’s an indictment on the Police and other investigating agencies.  It is this ‘openness’ with respect to attacks on citizens and especially media personnel that makes people pick up ‘journalist’ over ‘businessman’ as in the case of Faraz Shauketaly.    It doesn’t of course make such privileging valid or defensible, but when we are talking politics of convenience and selectivity as such we see every year when the UN’s human rights outfit has its meetings, it is prudent not to make things easier for the spoiler. 

The attack on Faraz Shauketaly, then, once again shows up a lot of people.  It is also another wake-up call to the Government with respect to investigations into attacks on journalists.  It just cannot afford to give more ammunition to its detractors.  Faraz has undressed many people, unintentionally, perhaps more than he ever has with his journalism.

Aspirants to the Supreme Court should be grilled

$
0
0
Problems between the Executive and Judiciary, interestingly, have all been related to judges whose appointments have been colored by political preferences.  It is not that they were unsuited, but nevertheless their appointments and therefore integrity were naturally questioned.  Still, as happened when Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake was impeached and removed from office, the focus was less on injudicious selection than on constitutional provision for removal.  Thus, until such time appointments to the Supreme Court are made only consequent to a stringent screening process provided for or supported by relevant legislative enactment, there can and will be impeachment circuses while the 1978 Constitution remains effective.

Now that it’s all done and dusted it is perhaps time to think of ‘starting point’ rather than anticipating and taking precaution against endpoints similar to what we saw a few weeks ago. 
In many countries aspirants or nominees to the Supreme Court are subjected to rigorous scrutiny.  Their histories, professional track record, all judgments passed, political positions taken, statements made as well as the lives of close associates including friends and family, are carefully considered in order to evaluate impartiality and integrity.  Not so in Sri Lanka. 

True, a president cannot pick just anyone off the street.  There are certain categories that are privileged.  We have had judges of the Supreme Court promoted from lower courts, moved from the Attorney General’s Department or drawn from the academic community.  Thus, there are some basic credentials that one must possess.  On the other hand, credentials are only part of the story.  An example might shed better light on the matter and hopefully prompt appropriate safeguards to be put in place.
Shirani Bandaranayake was an academic and one with explicit ideological preferences.   In fact she was admonished and instructed not to take cases that had anything to do with devolution, given certain outcome preferences and particularities of political reading.  She did.  She irked the Executive.  She paid the price, and the legality or ethicality of process of the matter are not our concern here.  The issue is ‘ideological preferences’. The issue is past record.  Let’s consider these via an unlikely appointment which is useful for purposes of illustrating the importance of circumspection in appointment. 

Let us assume that President Mahinda Rajapaksa goes for certificate-weight. Let us assume that he picks Dr Lakshman Marasinghe, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Windsor, Canada, Attorney-at-Law and Barrister-at-Law (Inner Temple), one time Visiting Professor of Law, University of Colombo and Legal Director of the Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (SCOPP) during the early days of the Ceasefire Agreement.  Impressive indeed, no one would dispute the fact. 
But is Marasinghe ‘clear’ on other issues, especially but not limited to matters arising from the constitution (as is) and questions of sovereignty, territorial integrity and so on? 

In an interview published in the Sunday Observer (March 14, 2004), Marasinghe waxes eloquent on ‘extra constitutional methods to change the constitution’.  He interjects an interesting term: ‘the doctrine of necessity’.  It’s about measuring evils and picking ‘the lesser’.  Subjective to core, one would observe.  He also interjects ‘efficacy’, in the event of a coup d’tat.  He adds that all that is required is ‘judicial control in the determination of (the) particular formula’ when certain articles are changed.  Now, if he were Chief Justice in a time of upheaval, say in an Arab Spring, post-Gaddafi Libya or ‘Imminent Syria’, where political control is dispersed, what then?  It would depend on his political preferences!   ‘Necessity’ then would justify and legitimate judicial action even if it amounted to recognizing de facto control of part of Sri Lanka by the LTTE and thereby conferring such with illegal control, with de jure status. 
Marasinghe also spoke about ‘extra constitutional means to set up an interim administration a la the infamous ISGA proposals.  He states, ‘A two-thirds majority is not relevant’ according to the present constitution’ a claim that has been disputed.  More importantly says that ‘if you set up an interim administration outside the constitutional framework (as would have been the case if the ISGA proposals had gone through) then you would be recognizing that, that territory is apart from the constitution and not within the territory of Sri Lanka’.

He illustrated the point graphically thus: ‘If you cover a table with a green cloth and put a white cloth over it and then withdraw parts of the white cloth, the green will appear.  Setting up an interim administration outside the constitution would be similar – two different territories.’
Marasinghe, in his capacity as Director (Legal) of SCOPP, was involved in preparing the MOU to be entered into between the Government and the LTTE in order to place foreign funds directly in the hands of the LTTE.  The MOU, moreover, provided that these funds would be treated as loans to the Government and repaid therefore by the Government, although they would be sent directly to accounts not controlled by the GOSL, accounts which the LTTE could access!  The Supreme Court, later, stayed these provisions as unconstitutional (Weerawansa v Attorney General).

Marasinghe advocated this mechanism at the relevant government ministries and departments.  His approach was clearly unprincipled as demonstrated by the SC decision
It’s all scholarly.  Eminently ‘respectable’.  Impeccable academic credentials, however, is still only a thin film in the matter of covering up political project, ideological drive and such. 

The problem is that the current system is so loose that a Marasinghe could very well creep into the Supreme Court.  When Bandaranayaka was appointed, her ideological preferences were not scrutinized or rather they may have been scrutinized and won approval from a like-minded political establishment.  Bandaranayaka subsequently went on to do her utmost to wreck the Government’s signature development project.  That was scripted, not when Divi Neguma came up but when she was appointed to the Supreme Court.  
The question is, can we (forget the Government) afford to err?  Should we not subject those who are recommended to such positions to rigorous scrutiny?  Isn’t that a price that aspirants ought to be ready to pay?  Or is a Marasinghe going to wreck us somewhere down the line? 

 

The Indian Resolution and Sri Lankan Resolve

$
0
0
Countries don’t love other countries, they love themselves. No country can find fault with another for pursuing its (that country’s) ‘national interest’. Botswana, then, must do what’s good for Botswana, and Sri Lanka must do what suits Sri Lanka.
So countries have to look for common ground, seek win-win situations or at least secure optimality in bilateral relations. In other words things could boil down to what in common parlance would amount to mutual back-scratching. So in Geneva, a few weeks from now, countries voting on the US-sponsored resolution on Sri Lanka, will not be voting for or against this country. They will be voting on the basis of their individual interest, i.e. what works best for them in terms of how they understand the word ‘best’.
Such political moment help countries being ‘assessed’ themselves assess others in relation to what may be called the Optimization Matrix. Previous votes which passed judgment, then, are in fact exercises which helped Sri Lanka pass judgment in return. Accordingly, Sri Lanka’s relations with individual countries get weighted, friendship-wise. Accordingly, it becomes prudent to stand with those with a better friendship quotient.

There are discernible ‘givens’ here. The USA will not initiate any resolution on any country in South Asia without approval-nod from India. Indeed, it is more likely that the two countries have agreed that India gets the first word and the last in South Asian affair. Last year in Geneva, India is said to have shown ‘friendship’ to Sri Lanka by ‘watering down’ the US resolution. Didn’t fool too many people. ‘Politics’ recommend that the pantomime unfolds to obtain the desired ‘final text’; so one begins with a hard text, makes much show of ‘negotiation’ and ‘compromise’ and get a ‘soft’ text as resolution, which is in fact the document that was considered both expedient and possible in the first place. We are yet to see the theatrics being played out, but we can rest assured that India, having first and last word, will secure the document it desires from Geneva. So much for friendship.

Over the years, two countries have been consistent in their ‘friendship’: Russia and China. China has insisted on two ‘conditions’: don’t recognize the Dalai Lama and don’t recognize Taiwan. Sri Lanka has not been consistent. We were ‘non-aligned-but-leaning-towards’ when it came to Russia, but dumped the Soviet Union for the USA in 1977, snubbing India in the process and adding insult to injury by insulting the Nehru family. We paid and continue to pay.
The USA has not been consistent. It has proclaimed friendship even as its representatives tried to arm-twist the Government to submit to Anton Balasingham’s agenda. Robert O. Blake even tried to save the LTTE’s military leadership right up to the last moments of the war.

The Indian Foreign Minister says ‘Sri Lanka is a sovereign state’ and claims that India has a policy of non-interference, even as it is reported that his Prime Minister has assured Tamil Nadu politicians that India will get Sri Lanka to go with the 13th Amendment, perniciously thrust down the throat of a nearsighted and hapless J.R. Jayewardena in 1987. India trained, funded and armed the LTTE. India thinks it knows best what is best for Sri Lanka. That’s arrogance, not friendship. India is has a clear threat-and-extract form of bilateral relations with Sri Lanka. As for India’s relations with the big powers, it was once an ally of the Soviet Union and now a US proxy, given its yearning for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. As for India’s love for Sri Lanka, all that needs to be noted is that Delhi must (show) love Tamil Nadu more.

So where and with whom should Sri Lanka stand at this juncture? Well, first of all Sri Lanka has to love Sri Lanka. The President (who must love himself, first) and the Government (which must love itself, first) must acknowledge that whatever popularity it enjoys comes from those who are not enthusiastic about power-devolution. India wants power devolved. USA must back India on this.

They talk of LLRC ‘recommendation’ as though the LLRC was some kind of constitutional council. If at all, the matter of devolution (which, in the LLRC Report comes with caveat) must be decided by the representatives and by the people (and here, the Tamil National Alliance is reneging on ‘mechanism’, the PSC set up for the purpose).
Thus, if we talk ‘optimization’, the deck is stacked in favor of Russia and China. The USA and India will play threat-and-extract, but given where Sri Lanka stands, there’s little to lose by calling their bluff. If Sri Lanka loves Sri Lanka and Mahinda Rajapaksa refuses to be masochistic like J.R. Jayewardene, Chandrika Kumaratunga and Ranil Wickremesinghe were, he would do well to consider these factors when playing the friendship card in the arena of international political economy.

The parameters of contentment

$
0
0
It is hard to find someone who is happy.  Happy-around-the-clock, that is.  Such happiness would be called ‘bliss’ and that’s pretty rare.  The richest men and women in this world have in a single moment become paupers.  Kings have lost their crowns and their heads.  The poor struggle daily to adjust consumption patterns to declining real incomes.  The disempowered struggle to lessen the burdens of subjugation. Those who love have lost and those who have not yearn for embrace. 

Quite apart from the risks inherent in contemporary life that weigh on mind, human beings by dint of a pernicious tendency to compare and contrast find happiness elusive.   Contentment is a word that rolls off the tongue easily, but it is dearly obtained.  We tend instead to count our blessings, by way of consolation. 
I was persuaded to contemplate on contentment by a line on the back of a three-wheeler.  Now three-wheelers often have tag-lines. Lots of them.  Some are striking lines from songs.  Some are lines from scriptures. Some are idioms. Some are lame, some dumb.  Some are incomprehensive.  This was one thought-provoking.

‘Linda mage nam, mama linden am, kaatavath ai vedanaa?’
[If the well is mine and if I am in the well, why should it bother anyone else?]

The allusion is to the well-known admonishment, ‘don’t be a frog in the well’, the recommendation being ‘get out, see the world, learn and expand your horizons’.  Logical, especially if we use well and frog as metaphors related to acquiring useful knowledge.   On the other hand, this frog-in-well business, as articulated in the three-wheeler assertion, can be taken as a reference to a different dimension of contentment.

Take ‘development’ for example.  We were given the to-be model: the West.  We were given a strategy: growth-led. We were given a paradigm: capitalism.  And it was supposed to be informed or framed too: science.  Western Science, that is.  We were not told and we didn’t stop to inquire how the West became ‘developed’ and ‘rich’.  White people in the USA, for example, were essentially fleeing plague and prosecution in Europe.  They robbed land from the native peoples and used slave labor to create wealth.  Today, those ‘gains’ are being sustained by wars (the weapons industry brings in bucks, the USA has hardly ever been at ‘peace’), slave labor (the US has the highest percentage of incarceration; prison labor is dirt cheap), and massive extraction of resources and securing of markets through various multilateral and bilateral agreements obtained through threat, bribe and other forms of arm-twisting. 
We rushed in without thinking.  We abandoned sustainable agriculture, organic fertilizer and pest-control methodologies, traditional rice varieties and a deliberately diverse crop-mix; we embraced chemical inputs, high-value crops, hybrid seed varieties and so on. We became dependent on multinational companies that provide seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and tractors (the FAO said Sri Lanka will be successful only when the last buffalo ends up in the Dehiwala Zoo!) and therefore fuel.  We were made credit-dependent.  The individual was the focus, so communities and solidarities came under attack. 

And now, with agriculture and indeed capitalism in crisis, we are asked to focus on things like traditional knowledge and technology, sustainable agriculture, organic inputs, social capital etc., only, these are terms, ‘knowledge-systems’ and methodologies that have long since been appropriated by the very same forces that destroyed our agriculture and related social organizations. 
We stepped out of a ‘well’, saw the world, exposed ourselves to all manner of exploitation and humiliation, and are now being asked to get back into the well. Only, the water is now poisoned! 

If the frog actually stepped out and took the high road to enlightenment, it would be flattened within seconds under the uncaring wheels of civilization.   
Our well was not dry, the water needed no purification.  It satisfied our thirst and we knew for the most part that there’s only so much water one can drink.  We knew of monsoon and rainless, clear-sky months, and so we learned the art of conservation. 

They say that a man travels to the ends of the earth in search of truth and returns home to find it. The frog, it seems, is more intelligent.  Stays in the well.   Contained, yes.  Contented too.  Maybe that’s something to think about. 

 

Time to face the music in Geneva!

$
0
0
A few weeks ago, the word from Delhi on US-sponsored resolution on Sri Lanka the UNHRC Sessions in Geneva was ‘yes’.  Let us translate: ‘Yes, we will vote ‘yes’ on the resolution’.  No surprises there because a) India voted ‘yes’ in 2012, and b) India is India (read ‘Not Sri Lanka’s friend) and c) this is an INDIAN Resolution, an INDIAN doosra although it is being delivered by the USA. 

The latest though is that India is ‘undecided’.  Now, in diplomatic circles, this indecision would be correctly read as evidence that the main protagonist is trying to extract the maximum juice from the Sri Lankan orange while not appearing to be anywhere near the fruit. 
Delhi has a problem.  It is called ‘Tamil Nadu’.  No, it is not Tamil Nationalism, which has been safely offshored to Sri Lanka.  It is about elections and related arithmetic.  It’s a political reality that figured in the calculations of all Indian political leaders.  So Delhi needs to ‘deliver’ something that’s at least halfway sweet to Jayalalitha.  On the other hand Delhi has to do this without appearing to be the bad guy that Delhi is because that might constitute the last brick in the Great Wall of China that India is building. So Geneva 2013 would ideally (for India) end  with Sri Lanka agreeing to India’s ‘solution’ (plus some other benefits, just like the Indo-Lanka Accord was not just about sorting an ‘ethnic’ conflict) for the price of the resolution being ‘watered down’ or even withdrawn (by the USA, not India, of course!). 

Sri Lanka’s main strength at this point is the fact that it is weak.  In other words Sri Lanka is in ‘Nothing to Lose Land’.  There’s no way that the Government can agree to India’s proposal (a re-hashing of the various Eelam proposals or Interim Eelam proposals) and still hope to retain popularity among all ethnic groups. 
Equal rights by definition cannot exclude anyone.  A 13A Plus, in the way India envisages, would concretize an Eelamist myth regarding traditional homelands. That would threaten the Sinhalese.  That would exclude the Sinhalese.  Equal rights can be obtained in other ways and should be obtained too. Sri Lanka doesn’t need India’s permission or India’s recommendations on such matters. 

We must recollect at this point that those who ruled India (either as whole or in part) have always attacked the Sinhalese; one remembers the Chola invasions and the tyrannies of the likes of Raja Raja and Magha.  Dr. Manmohan Singh is but a 21stCentury avatar of these gentlemen. 
President Mahinda Rajapaksa observed recently, ‘Sri Lanka is like a volley ball; everyone is taking turns at punching it to cover up their sins’.  He did not elaborate, but here’s a list that ought to be read by whoever is negotiating defeat for Sri Lanka in Geneva:

We have the German SPD needing to cover up history of killing millions in the 20th Century. We have the USA, wanting us to forget the monumental crimes against humanity in all parts of the world as well as against the First Nations in America and African Americans. We have Britain’s genocidal conduct in colonies and subsequent crimes against humanity as partner-in-crime of the USA. We have India and the Kashmir they want the world not to talk about.

The bottom line though is that given the amount of bucks and weapons of mass destruction these countries possess and given Sri Lanka’s poverties in these respects, the ‘cover up’ will continue.  But since Sri Lanka can only be expected to be goaded to sign agreements against Sri Lanka’s interest, each one more pernicious than the ones that came before, this is as opportune a moment as any to call India’s bluff.

Sri Lanka can take the following position:

‘Go ahead.  Table the resolution. We’ll face the vote, we’ll face the music.  All we can do is do our best and we have.  We’ve done what you have not done, ever. Try rescuing 300,000 people held hostage by the Al Qaeda (or by the US Marines), trying feeding them 3 meals a day.  Try thinking about releasing over 10,000 terrorists after rehabilitation.  Stop. Don’t even try. You cannot.  So let’s cut to the chase.  Let’s take the vote. We want to see who are friends are.  Ms. India, go ahead, vote.  We want to know where you stand, so that we can decided in which direction we should move.  Wait, did we hear someone mention China? Maybe we heard wrong. So, to get back to the point, vote.  We have little to lose, but even in defeat we would like to see the face of the enemy, we would like to know the names of those who did us in.  Simple. 


Rohantha Pieris’ lesson on ‘knowledge’

$
0
0
Big Matches are places to meet old friends.  Sometimes though one is introduced to total strangers.  On Friday, at the Royal Thomian I spotted Royal’s rugger captain of 1978, Rohantha Peiris.  He was chatting away with some friends as I passed by.  A couple of hours later, someone buttonholed me (not literally of course).  A stranger.  He knew my mother, who taught at Royal for 15 years.  He introduced me to another stranger: ‘This is Rohantha’s brother’.   Older brother, clearly.  Eminently recognizable. 

So I told him what I remembered of Rohantha.  No, not the Bradby legs of 1978, but the final of a Premadasa Trophy knockout tournament where his team, CR&FC was trailing the opposing team (‘CH,’ his brother reminded me).  I told him how Rohantha made use of a then largely unknown lineout rule, to take a quick throw-in (he was not the hooker), left everyone perplexed and engineered a win for his team.  I told him how important knowing the rules were, especially when the opponents (in a game, in politics etc) are ignorant. 
‘Yes, you have to know the rules and you have to know when to use them,’ he remarked. 

We don’t know the rules.  We don’t know the law. We don’t know customs, the reethi that goes hand in hand with neethi (laws), that ultimate textual encoding of propriety in any given society.  When we transgress, often it is out of ignorance: we don’t know the neethior the reethi. When we fail, again it is often because we did not know the existence of specific rules which we could refer to and draw succor from.
Moreover, as Rohantha’s brother pointed out it is not enough to know these things but when to draw from what.  A quick throw-in at any other point in the game might not have altered the run of play in the way it was orchestrated by Rohantha.  There are many legal ways of responding to any situation.  Just like a lawyer would refer to X vs Y instead of P vs Q to buttress argument, one has to pick and choose.  Certain things work only in certain contexts or at least work better in certain contexts.  A spinner, for example, mixes up his deliveries to keep the batsman guessing so that when the wicket-ball is delivered he is unprepared and more likely to err. 

It is not of course only about bamboozling an opponent.  It is a lesson that can be evoked in noncompetitive situations as well.  After all, an individual being spend more time grappling with him/herself than with others or the world. 
The pertinent point is that you have to know the rules and know them well. You have to know all the rules in fact because this gives you the privilege of choice.  And if you take the broader meaning of ‘rule’, i.e. in relation to ethical frames, it would be less likely that you will be stumped by your inevitable human frailty. 

Reflecting on that conversation late Friday night, I realized that one could drop the ‘rules’ part of the story and focus on the broader term, ‘knowing’.  Knowledge is key. 
If we go along with the lessons of that rugger match, Rohantha knew the lineout rule and much more besides.  His teammates probably knew a lot too. All of them, whether or not they knew the rule, clearly knew what ‘innovation’ meant, what ‘adapting’ meant and what ‘team’ meant.  They delivered for themselves, for one another, the fans and the team.  

This conversation took place when play had been stopped due to rain (abandoned altogether later).  There was loud music, lots of singing and reminiscing, cheers and laughter and all the revelry that’s part of the Big Match experience.  There’s always something extra that one can take away from the Big Match, I realized.  Well, you could take something extra from anything, I suppose, but this time it was this observation from a man I had never met before and with whom I chatted for less than a minute before I was dragged away by some friends; too quick for his name to register.  Rohantha’s brother he was and will be until who knows when.  But what he said, remained.
We got to know.  It is as simple as that.   And as complex as that, Rohantha’s brother might add.

Sri Lanka is not India

$
0
0
[and let’s pray that it stays this way]

Sri Lanka is not India and India is not Sri Lanka.  That’s easy to say, easy to conclude and indeed one might even say ‘that’s stating the obvious’.  Two different countries of different size, different resource endowment, different post-colonial baggage to deal with, different errors and approaches creating different problems, different numbers of people, different economies, different agendas, different so many things.  Two countries, definitely.  So what’s the story here?

It is a story of pilgrims and pilgrimages, one about hospitality and friendship, claims of brotherly love and expressions of fraternity, reference to commonalities and disavowal of the same, allusion to histories and negation of the past, a moment’s madness and timeless tolerance.  Pilgrims in a bus and pilgrims who came by boat.  Poondi Madha Christian shrine near Thanjavur and the St Anthony’s Church, Kachchativu. The Kachchativu church and the Christian shrine near Nagapattinam.  Differences.  Many differences. 

On September 4, 2012, five buses carrying around 180 Sri Lankan pilgrims to the Trichy airport were attacked on Tuesday.  The convoy of five buses was headed to the Trichy airport to board a special flight home.  They were returning after offering worship at the famous Velankanni Christain shrine near Nagapattinam.  The Sri Lankan nationals were meted out similar treatment during their pilgrimage to the Poondi Madha Christian shrine near Thanjavur yesterday.  The majority were Tamil. 

They were not politicians, they were not political activists or ‘apologists for the Sri Lankan Government’.  They were pilgrims. They came in peace firm in their faith.  They were attacked by Indian citizens, Indian politicians and Indian mobs, Tamils mostly. 

On February 24, 2013, Tamil Nadu police turned back 70 Lankan pilgrims even before they reached the Annai Velankanni shrine fearing violence by Tamil nationalist groups.  It is not that all pilgrims are routinely harassed of course.  Sri Lankans have worshipped at these shrines for decades.  They worshipped long before ethnic tensions burst into armed insurrection, as the battles raged and after the guns were made to fall silent in May 2009.  Sri Lankan Buddhists, Hindus and Christians travelled to or through Chennai to worship at the shrines of their choice.  Not all of them were insulted, not all of them were targeted for stone-throwing.  And yet, it is not the number of insults or attacks or the ratio between attacked and not-attacked but the fact of intolerance that counts.  

It is of course not just pilgrims who are subjected to harassment in Tamil Nadu and elsewhere.  Politicians, state officials, professionals, artists, sportsmen and sportswomen and other tourists have been routinely bad-mouthed, threatened and attacked.  

And it is not as though Tamil Nadu politicians or the mobs they unleash on Sri Lankans (whether they are Sinhalese or Tamils) really care about Sri Lankan Tamils.  If there are CCTV cameras in the Chennai Airport, they would have captured the insults and humiliations that Sri Lankan Tamils are subjected to.  The ‘fraternal love’ is conspicuously absent when Tamil Nadu fishermen poach in Sri Lankan waters, openly robbing their Sri Lankan Tamil ‘brethren’ of livelihoods. 

But forget all that.  Every year, Indians come in their thousands to Kachchathivu Island to pray at the Roman Catholic Shrine dedicated to St Anothony, the patron saint of fisherfolk.  They’ve done so for decades, going back to the early part of the 20th Century. Their passports are never checked.  They come in boats, setting off from Rameswaram, Thangatchimadam and Mandapam. 

Here, every year, the fraternal Tamil Christian communities unite.  Here, they pray together. 

There is no food, water, transportation, electricity or shelter on this island.  These are all provided by the Sri Lanka Navy, reviled in Tamil Nadu and for decades fired on by terrorists who were funded, trained and armed by the Indian Government and who found in Tamil Nadu a safe haven to regroup, recuperate, rearm and return to fight from.  This same Navy deploys lifeguards and medical teams for the convenience of the devotees.

Not a single devotee from Tamil Nadu can complain of ill treatment.  No eye-for-eye here.  No one going blind.  They came, they saw, they prayed, they made their peace with their respective demons, slayed the ghosts that haunted them. 

And it is not just pilgrims to Kachchativu Island.  Apart from the occasional (and eminently legitimate and justifiable) protests at the Indian High Commission against India’s unfriendly acts against Sri Lanka, Indian nationals are not singled out to pay ‘for the sins,’ alleged or real, of Tamil Nadu politicians, the Indian Government or any other Indian.  They are not considered ‘proxies’ from whom ‘redress’ can be extracted by virtue of that very labeling. 

Is it because Sri Lanka is different from India in terms of size, military strength and power to leverage internationally, and therefore there is reluctance to do anything that could be considered provocation?  One could argue along those lines, certainly, but then again the Sri Lankan monster that India nursed into full adulthood, the LTTE, proved to be a creature that India could not handle.  It’s not about size.  It is not about military strength.  It has to be something else.  Some may say ‘degree of civilization’, and that would turn upon its head the frequently thrown around notion that Sri Lanka is ‘little brother’ to the Indian ‘big brother’ or that Sri Lanka somehow owes India its cultural heritage.  We don’t really know. 

What we do know is that India is not Sri Lanka when it comes to letting off steam, objecting to felt injustice, picking fights, choosing targets and other illogical things.  The reason for this difference is not what is important. It is the difference that counts.  And that’s why Kachchativu is not Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu is not the Northern Province, India is not Sri Lanka. 

If one were to look for the well of hope, there’s more chance of finding it in dry Kachchativu than in the watered Annai Velankanni shrine.  It cannot be about ‘god’s will’, it cannot be about the relative merits or strength of patron saints.  And it doesn’t really matter either.  In Kachchativu, two peoples from two countries worship together.  It has to do with a way of being and ways of thinking and reflecting. In Sri Lanka, not India.   

msenevira@gmail.com

We are nothing if we are not all

$
0
0
Api venuwen api(all of us for all of us) was a defining slogan as the entire nation stood with the President, the Government and the security forces in the last years of the struggle to rid the country of the terrorist menace.  Today, almost four years later, the country faces another test, this time from external sources.  A few days from now the UNHRC will take up a US sponsored resolution on (read ‘against’) Sri Lanka.  Given realities of global power balance (and imbalance) in all likelihood, the resolution will pass.  There is very little that Sri Lanka can do about international busybodies with pernicious agendas backed by bucks and guns, not even if Sri Lanka had the finest diplomats on earth. 

As is mentioned in the Dhammapada (Verse 11, Sariputta Thera Vattu), ‘those take untruth for truth; they take truth for untruth, persons can never arrive at the truth, for they hold wrong views’.
The silver lining, paradoxically, in these trying circumstances is the opportunity to separate friend from friend-claimant. India, for example, is said to be negotiating another ‘watered down’ resolution, but this should not fool anyone.  India would love to come off as ‘friend’ even as it wrangles a resolution that will keep Tamil Nadu happy and its interests in Sri Lanka safe from usurpation by China (for example). 

Come next Sunday, we will know. 
Whatever happens, Sri Lankans must reconcile to the fact that in the face of adversity and in times of celebration we are best when we are united, i.e. when we are in api venuven api mode. 

Now absolute unity in any polity is a myth.  We can only speak of degrees of unity.   We can be united against a common enemy, even if we are at odds with one another.  Sometimes adversity prompts blaming.  When faced with storms beyond our strength we take our frustrations out on lesser ‘enemies’.  Sometimes we even conjure enemies where there are none.
It is not possible of course to explain animosities between followers of different faith in terms of what’s happening in Geneva right now.  However, regardless of Geneva, it is prudent to reflect on the notion of unity and the attendant virtues of tolerance, compassion and wisdom as we struggle to obtain and experience the full meaning of the term ‘citizenry’ in a post-terrorism Sri Lanka.

There is reality and there is perception. Human beings are frail and this frailty cuts across all identity markers, all faiths, all ethnic groups, all classes, castes and age groups.  No community can claim it is blameless in taunting, causing grievous hurt and insulting another.  It is this very fact that is used by those persuaded by less than religious motives to make point, exaggerate, raise anxiety level and in these and other ways mobilize the lowest human sentiments for political projects that have nothing to do with the teachings they profess to abide by. 
Religious fervor is an easily sharpened sword.  Those who use that instrument have an edge over those who are probably closer adherents to fundamental tenets.  All the more reason for those who would hesitate to be swayed by religious-politics to stand up and be counted, stand up and stand between executor and would-be executed, literally and metaphorically.

A good Buddhist is a good human being. So too a good Hindu, a good Muslim and a good Christian.  All religious texts are made for interpretation and therefore for pernicious misinterpretation.  That’s politics. But all texts contain notions of tolerance, compassion, giving and wisdom. 

People say we cannot afford another ‘July 1983’.  The reasons, it is claims, is the flak Sri Lanka will receive internationally.  This is not true.  We cannot afford another ‘July 1983’ not because of the exaggerations it will spawn, the distortions and the political instability, but that it will leave us impoverished in terms of how we relate to each other, individually and as collectives. 

Extremism is not always produced by extremists.  The TULF was ‘moderate’, the LTTE was not.  But malice, exaggeration of grievance, inflation of aspiration, provocation, planting of mistrust etc., unleash forces that are beyond the control of the unleashing entity. 
A ‘Good Buddhist’ would be a failure if he let anyone in his/her name or the name of ‘Buddhism’ harm anyone of any other faith, whatever wrong he/she may have done.  ‘Revenge’ has no place in Buddhism.  Neither is it resident in Hinduism, Islam or Christianity.  Infringement of the law has to be taken care of law enforcement authorities, not private citizens.  If laws are deficient or law enforcement authorities errant, then these flaws have to be corrected. We cannot have unauthorized entities interpreting the law and enforcing it. 

Api (us) is not an ethnic-specific term.  It is an inclusive one and moreover one that finds resonance in all faiths.  If a Muslim does not recognize the humanity of a non-Muslim then he is a lesser Muslim.  The same holds for a Buddhist.  If a Buddhist sees a lesser creature in a Christian then he/she diminishes him/herself and his/her fellow Buddhists. 
We are nothing if we are not all. 

msenevira@gmail.com

Pope Francis: of Assisi, Buenos Aires or Washington

$
0
0
Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina appears to be a different from others who came before him.  To the Papacy, that is.  He is the first Pope from Latin America.  He is the first to take the name Francis. 

Both are significant.  In a context where the Catholic Church is fast losing ground in its ‘traditional homelands’ (Europe and North America), where the numbers of atheists are on the rise and among theists Muslims are gaining ground at a rate that they are projected to be the dominant faith-group 50 years from now, it makes sense to seek fresh pasture.  Asia and Africa, some would say, have a color problem. Latin America is a shade less uncomfortable.

‘Francis’ is also significant.  Francis of Assisi is the saint most identified with the poor, that is poverty, simplicity, humility and most importantly the rebuilding of the Catholic Church.  CNN’s Vatican expert John Allen puts it this way:  "There are cornerstone figures in Catholicism, such as St. Francis; they are ‘irrepeatable’.” 

Pope Benedict XVI once recounted how ‘Christ on the Cross’ came to life three times in the small Church of St. Damian and told St. Francis: "Go, Francis, and repair my Church in ruins."   The Catholic Church, besieged by scandals of corruption, cover up of sexual abuse by priests and other ills, is certainly in dire need of repair on many counts.  It is also seen as an institution that works hand in glove with the rich and a willing and able servant of capital.  Pope John Paul II is often referred to as a key player in bringing down the Soviet Bloc, for example. 

‘Francis’, then, can be taken as a signal, and as Allen says: ‘this will not be business as usual.’   

The Pope does have the credentials to piggy back on the saintly reputation of the original Francis.  He has built for himself a considerable reputation as someone who had ‘a special place in his heart and his ministry for the poor, the disenfranchised, for those living on the fringes and facing injustice.’  He would eat alongside the poor in Buenos Aires when he was an archbishop, for example. 

On the other hand, Bergoglio is also accused of colluding in the monumental human rights abuses of the 1976-1983 military junta that ruled Argentina.  He is seen as an arch conservative in the Church who was totally at odds with the teachings of liberation theology that inspired and was inspired by movements against all manner of tyrannies in Latin America in the seventies, eighties and nineties.  Most tellingly, he is accused of beinga Machiavellian felon who betrayed his brothers and had them disappeared and tortured by the military in the name of an insatiable ambition.

The human rights group HIJOS, which represents children of the estimated 30,000 people kidnapped and murdered by the regime, renewed claims he was complicit in stealing victims’ babies and turned in priests, who were then tortured. The longest-standing accusation is that in 1976, as a high-ranking official in Argentina’s Jesuit order, Pope Francis allowed two priests to be kidnapped. Orlando Yorio and Francisco Jalics were taken to ESMA, an infamous Buenos Aires detention centre, where they remained for five months.

Subsequently, Pope Francis stopped protecting them from the military and paved the way for their capture. He has denied the allegations and no charges have ever been brought.

“Yorio and Jalics were kidnapped in a raid,” Pope Francis told his biographer, Sergio Rubin. “That same night I found out and I started to act. I didn’t throw them out of the church and I didn’t want them to be unprotected.”

Others like Adolfo Perez Ezquiel, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning human rights activist, who was detained by the dictatorship, said Pope Francis, like many clerics of the time, may not have spoken out but could not be accused of being complicit in its crimes.

Estela de la Cuadra, whose sister, Elena, was pregnant when she was kidnapped in 1977, claims otherwise: “Pope Francis lied during a trial of military dictators when he said in a statement that he only found out that victims’ babies had been stolen after the dictatorship ended. Documents from 1979 showed he had knowledge of the case.”

It is well known that Washington has been the main mover in supporting dictatorships, juntas and where necessary ‘democracies’ in Latin America against all movements, peaceful and otherwise, that contested the violence unleashed on peoples and resources by multinational capital.  At best it can be only claimed that Pope Francis has a dubious track record when it came to picking sides.  As such whether he is really a ‘Latin American Pope’ or a religious equivalent of the dozens of Latin American political leaders who were but Washington’s puppets remains unanswered. 
Still, whether out of spiritual predilection or preferences of practice, whether for reasons of convenience or conviction, he has chosen the name ‘Francis’.  He has therefore trapped himself into a particular role. Given the stature that comes with the Papacy, he will have to deliver or be accused of sullying the name of a saint who one could claim most resembled Jesus Christ, in life and ministry. 

Perhaps he will indeed be a different kind of pope.  Perhaps not.  Time will tell.   


Spare a thought for Manmohan Singh

$
0
0

India has a question for Sri Lanka: How will India's vote in the UNHRC impact Indo-Lanka relations? It’s a complicated question and one which prompts multiple answers. 

Officially, the Government still considers India a friendly country. The nature and volume of trade between the 2 countries, especially what SL imports, both in terms of volume and number of items, makes severing relations hard. The fact that the Indian Parliament did not choose to pass a resolution against SL will also be factored in: 'face-value' has value.

On the other hand, the Government will most certainly appreciate Pakistan's friendship and also China's support. Unofficially, it is likely that the Government will move closer to these two countries, not so much to 'teach India a lesson' but for pragmatic reasons, of which the following must be flagged: 'India cannot be counted on'.

If there was a buzz regarding Geneva 2012, this time around there was hardly a murmur.  If people wondered what India would do last year, this year there was no doubt.  India’s vote was not ‘news’. 
Did India, or rather Delhi/Singh, have a choice though? 

First of all, India, having burnt the friendship boat or rather what was left of it in Geneva in 2012, could hardly be expected to do a volte face and certainly not after pandering to the pro-LTTE Sour Grape lobby in India and elsewhere. 
Secondly, India, aspiring as it is to break into the UN Security Council, can hardly afford to annoy the USA, which country tabled the resolution against Sri Lanka.  Please note that the US Ambassador’s semantic intervention (resolution ON Sri Lanka and not AGAINST her) fools no one for at best it smacks of a 21st Century version of ‘White Man’s Burden’. 

Thirdly, Manmohan Singh and the Congress Party cannot ignore political arithmetic.  Whether its Jayalalitha or Karunanidhi that’s calling for accompaniment, Singh has to dance to the Tamil Nadu tune come election time.  It is for this reason that Sonia Gandhi had to forgive her husband’s murderer.  Perhaps. 

Fourthly, nothing that Singh does (against Sri Lanka) is ‘enough’ for Tamil Nadu because Jayalalitha and Karunanidhi have to keep upping the stakes as both appeal to the worst sentiments of Tamil Nationalism to secure and usurp power in that state respectively.  Singh was burnt both before and after Geneva. 
Fifthly, Singh has a lot to lose by pandering to Tamil Nadu, which is why the Resolution on (against) Sri Lanka in the Indian Parliament was still born. 

With all these issues to think of, India is also harangued by Sri Lanka’s firm friendship with Pakistan and China.  Now some may say that India sided with the USA to ‘send a message to Sri Lanka regarding the growing Chinese “presence” in the island,’ but when we consider the volatility of the factors Singh has to take note of, this seems trivial.  Singh is first a politician and then a patriot; like all politicians on may add.  If Delhi sided with Sri Lanka and Singh lost the election, a sojourn in the political wilderness may have seemed too high a price to pay for not having a lesser Chinese presence in the backyard. 
Regardless of all this, and all the tired and expected noises India is now forced to make about accountability and reconciliation (by way of the 13th Amendment; read ‘boundary-lining Eelam myths’), Sri Lanka has to understand Singh’s predicament and read his choice-lack accurately.  The man didn’t have many options.  An option-poor man’s statements and demands must therefore be viewed with compassion and empathy. 

It is better for Sri Lanka to let Singh find cures for his many political miseries and concentrate on getting things done right here, in Colombo, Killinochchi, Monaragala and elsewhere, in the Constitution and the Separation of Powers, with respect to transparency and accountability, reconciliation and rule of law.  This should be done not because there’s going to be another circus in Geneva a year from now, but the only way Sri Lanka can resist spoilers from other countries is to be united. Unity is not obtained by poetry workshops and development exhibitions, but by a full consideration of what ‘citizen’ means and what has to be done on all fronts to make citizenship meaningful, to create a Sri Lanka where citizens feel acknowledged, respected and belonging. 
 
[The Nation 'Editorial', March 24, 2013]

Green snows and white grass

$
0
0
Years after I left Ithaca, a small town in Upstate New York, best known for being the address of Cornell University but made up of lots more than students, professors, libraries and labs, I reconnected with an old friend, Tony Del Plato. 

Tony was an activist.  He sided with the natural world and people who were oppressed or marginalized one way or another.  He knew the big picture but didn’t miss the details.  He was one of the most articulate Ithacans I’ve met and this includes professors from many disciplines.  I would meet him at various protests and demonstrations.  We would sometimes chat over coffee. 
When I reconnected it was winter in Ithaca.  I was writing from sunny, tropical Sri Lanka.  So I ‘wired’ him some sunlight and warmth, knowing well how snow-laden Ithaca can be harsh on the bones and how the short days hem people in with gloom. 

Tony responded and although he didn’t/couldn’t write it in, I couldn’t help reading ‘shrug’ in what he had to say: ‘In summer one enjoys the sun and the warmth, in winter the cold, whiteness and short days’.  It was like saying, ‘I know the grass is greener over there brother, but hey, snow is beautiful too!’ 
Now there are times when friends from Ithaca post pictures on facebook.  Louise Silberling for instance, my ‘big sis’ in the Development Sociology Department at Cornell.  She clicks away through the seasons, the joys and sorrows, fullness and vacancy as captures her fancy at the particular moment.  She posted ‘winter pics’ recently.  Brought back memories.  Nostalgia invaded. I longed for that Ithaca of such a long time ago, and with it, everyone who made Ithaca what it was for me although most of them have gone their ways to destinations planned and unplanned. 

It is good to remember.  Longing, though, is something else.  Places change.  What was is not what is because what was was made of people, relationships, contexts and these don’t remain consistent.  I visited Ithaca in 2004, that’s 4 years after I ‘left for good’.  I met some professors and some Ithacans who are more resident than those who come to Cornell.  There were 2 friends from that other time, Aaron the Artist and Chad the Doctoral Student.  so we met, talked old-times-talk. It was nice.  Nice, but different.  In 2006, I revisited.  That was yet another Ithaca.  Chad had finished his PhD and left. The other was about to.  But there was another friend from that earlier time who had come to Ithaca to sit and write her doctoral dissertation.  So we met, the three of us;  Aaron, Ayca and myself.  It was nice and differently nice.
I will not visit these Ithacas again, but when I felt a heart-tug seeing Louise’s pictures, I also remembered Tony Del Plato and his thesis on seasons.  

These are hot and humid days in Colombo.  They are also bright days.  Days of familiarity that are made for thanksgiving.   Here, I have all my friends and they are all resident within me. Here I have my Ithacan friends as well, for memory dies slow and life offers enough metaphors that prompt revisitation.
I don’t know where Tony Del Plato is right now, but wherever he is, I am pretty sure that’s where the grass is greenest for him. Or the snow whitest. 



 

A nation on the edge

$
0
0
The nation is on edge.  There is a sense of foreboding.  There are fears of a July 1983 repeat.  Indeed there are even those who are eagerly waiting for such an eventuality.  And there is no shortage of people and organizations that feed these fears, knowingly or unknowingly contributing to tensions. 

In the aftermath of the violent incident in Pepiliyana where a Muslim-owned business, Fashion Bug, was attacked by mobs, the Bodu Bala Sena categorically denied involvement and condemned the attack. Indeed, the organization went as far as to state, a) that the Police should arrest all those responsible, even if they happened to be bikkhus, b) that the organization has neither called for a Buddhist boycott of Muslim shops nor threatened with physical harm those who patronized them. 
This is a welcome move, especially since the rhetoric of the organization has not exactly championed co-existence and tolerance.  It appears that the rhetoric has given rise to forces that the organization cannot control and which, ironically, operate in the name of the Bodu Bala Sena, setting up Twitter, Facebook and other accounts in the domain of social media.   Bodu Bala Sena cannot claim innocence in the groundwork that has been laid for intolerance and violence to prosper. 

On the other hand, vilifying the Bodu Bala Sena has led to a blanket dismissal and vilification of Buddhists.  This too does nothing to ease tensions.  The Bodu Bala Sena statement, in this context, must be applauded, but with a certain degree of caution. The organization could do more if it clearly stated that as per the teachings of the Buddha, it will support authorities responsible for law and order to ensure that Muslims and Muslim businesses and other properties are protected. 
It is also heartening that President Mahinda Rajapaksa has announced that he is not the President of the Sinhalese and Buddhists but is the President of all communities and people of all religious faiths.  He has clearly signaled that the Government will not turn a blind eye to religious intolerance in whatever form.  It is a good sign that three persons have already been arrested over the incident, but peace requires swift and decisive action to prevent incidents as much as bringing to book those who violate the law. 

If things get better from now on, much of the accolades should go to the Muslim community which has shown remarkable restraint and good sense.  This should not be reason for complacency or for assumption of ‘weakness’ or ‘impotence’, though.  All it takes is for one individual to lose control for an entire nation to be engulfed in flames we can very well do without.  The only way that the Bodu Bala Sena can stop this from happening is by actively reaching out to their Muslim brethren, to take whatever grievances they may have to the relevant authorities and these authorities dealing with issues as per constitutional provision. 
Any attack on any Muslim individual (or any individual for that matter, regardless of religious persuasion) is not in keeping with Buddhism.  Indeed any attack is a blemish on the overall cultural ethos of Sri Lanka which undoubtedly has been wrought of Buddhism more than any other doctrine, religious or otherwise.  If a Muslim is attacked, then, it is an affront to Buddhism and the attacker can at best claim to be Buddhist only by name. 

Buddhists have not given any organization the authority to speak on their behalf. Only the bikkhusof their respective temples and the Mahanayakas of the three nikayas have that authority.  These authorities have not endorsed the Bodu Bala Sena.  Neither have they actively intervened to urge Buddhists to adhere to the teachings of the Buddha, especially those tenets pertaining to compassion and tolerance.  Clearly, a lot more needs to be done. 
The Government has a responsibility.  Religious leaders too.   The general citizenry needs to be alert and exercise utmost caution and tolerance. Anyone taking the law into his/her hands is not affirming his/her faith but in fact denouncing it by that very act. 

The nation is on the edge.  It is a moment of truth.  A political chasm beckons.  All the more reason to take a step back. 
[The Nation 'Editorial', March 31, 2013]

The Muslim in me

$
0
0
One of the greatest lessons that Buddhism has taught me is that the idea or concept of ‘self’ is untenable.  Paṭikkūlamanasikāra or "reflections on repulsiveness", where body parts are contemplated in a variety of ways teaches us not just about impermanence but makes us question ‘I’.  It helps diminish ego.  Similarly if one contemplated sensations and thoughts deep enough immediately one begins to understand that ‘I’ is made of innumerable ‘externalities’.   This too makes a composite, name-related ‘self’ a meaningless proposition.

A simple illustration might help.  A human body is made mostly of water.  Where was this water 2 weeks ago and where will it be 2 weeks from now?  Could it not have been in the body of an ‘enemy’ and might it not be in the body of the animal whose limb we are about to devour with relish?  Indeed, that water that was part of the dead chicken whose wings, spiced and sauced, that we suck on greedily, could very well have been part of one’s own mother or child. 
Take ‘thought’.  We say ‘I think’ as though an idea was birthed by ourselves and no one else contributed to the birthing.  The truth is that our thoughts are a blend of thoughts that came our way from innumerable sources: the books we read, the people we’ve encountered, the music we hear and everything that has grazed or lacerated our senses.  ‘I’ is a composite of all these encounters in their multiplicity of form and source. 

There are four books that my father recommended that I read at a very young age.  One was ‘Bobby Fischer teaches chess’ which made me fall in love with the game.  The second was ‘Mother’, by Maxim Gorky, which was to me an introduction to Socialism. The third was Gorky’s ‘Literary Portraits,’ which created a thirst for Russian literature. The fourth was a collection of poems by Jalal ad-Din Rumi, which introduced me to the Sufi Mystics, Sufi poetry and Sufism. 
Rumi made me look for other Sufi poets.  I frequently return to my precious volumes of Rumi and Hafiz of Shiraz.  I have collected books containing the poetry of other ‘Muslim’ poets such as Ghalib and Iqbal.  I’ve enjoyed the ghazals of Faiz Ahmed Faiz.  I return to them as frequently as I revisit the Buddha Dhamma.  They are part of me.

There are conversations I’ve had with amazing human beings who adhere to the tenets of Islam.  The Chief Subeditor of the Sunday Island, Mansur, a Marxist (and atheist) who returned to the Quran and became a devout Muslim is one of the most learned people I’ve met in my journalistic journey so far.  Mr. Ilias, who taught Logic at Royal College and doubled up as Scout Master, is someone I still have interesting conversations with when I run into him near Ladies’ College. He taught me Tamil at school and took pains to teach us Grade Niners lines from the Thirukkural. This is why, twenty years later I sought him out and persuaded him to teach me Tamil, an exercise which unfortunately didn’t go beyond half a dozen classes. 
Most importantly, I firmly believe that if the ‘I’ that is ‘me’ is made of anything it is made of free education.  Who gave me free education? Who paid for free consultancy in state-run hospitals?  Sinhalese? Buddhists?  Yes, but not just them.  There were Tamils and Muslims, Christians and Hindus, men and women from all parts of the country, of all faiths, all castes, all political persuasions who directly or indirectly paid for my education.  Some observe sil, some pray to Allah, some make the mark of the cross, some pray to Vishnu or Shiva.  Some are found in kovils, some in churches, some in mosques. Some wear short skirts, some wear the hijab. 

I am a Sinhalese. A Buddhist by conviction.  But this ‘I’ is also made of water-parts and thought-parts that have sojourned in non-Buddhist corporality.  More than this, men and women of all communities have made me who I am in ways that I cannot count to a finish.  If I raise my hand against a community or a faith that would not only be inconsistent with the truths I subscribe to and defend, but it would be a self-slap.  If I do not defend someone who is attacked on account of his/her faith, I would be abandoning a blood-brother and a blood-sister.  I cannot recognize myself if I don’t see ‘me’ in someone who subscribes to a different system of belief, speak a different language or has different preferences in clothing. 
Buddhism teaches me to do my best to treat things with equanimity, to appreciate the transient nature of things, to exercise compassion and err on the side of reason (over emotion).  The Buddha gave me the Kalama Sutra (The Buddhist Charter on Free Thinking).  All of this has opened me to other faith-worlds, people of different persuasions. 

I am a Buddhist in whose mind, heart and body there resides Muslims, indeed a Buddhist whose understanding of Buddhism encourages and permits such residency.  I cannot evict them and have no reason to do so either.  I am richer for their residency. 
[Published in THE NATION, March 31, 2013]

 

Just saying…

 

         

 

 

 

Let’s call the Tamil Nadu bluff

$
0
0
Poor Manmohan Singh.  It looks like nothing he does (or does not do) wins him applause from Tamil Nadu.  Whether or not the Indian Prime Minister is concerned about the growing Chinese footprint in Sri Lanka, he will be (as he as) harassed to the point of tears by the likes of Jayalalithaa and Karunanidhi, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and ex-Chief Minister (and Chief Minister aspirant) respectively. 

The virulent and irrational sentiments expressed by these Tamil Nadu politicians don’t really ruffle any feathers here in Sri Lanka. In fact the aforementioned two are trustworthy suppliers for those who pen funny captions.  The latest is a cartoon doing the rounds on Facebook and Twitter where the Indian Cricket Board is urged to include a ‘tournament clause’ prohibiting Lasith Malinga from yorking Murali Vijay ‘because it might hurt Tamil sentiments’. 
Earlier, the Board submitted to pressure from this racist and xenophobic leaders by determining that Sri Lankan crickets taking part in the Indian Premier League tournament will not play in Tamil Nadu.  Sri Lanka pilgrims including both the clergy and lay persons, government officials, business persons and tourists have been targeted and attacked on numerous occasions in that state, which was also used as an operational base by the LTTE terrorists, who also enjoyed the largess of successive Indian governments by way of training, funds and weapons. 

Now, these eccentric politicians demand that India pass a resolution against Sri Lanka in the Parliament.  They urge Delhi to declare that Sri Lanka is not a friendly country.  For now, Delhi has resisted, but one cannot tell when electoral prerogatives pertaining to coalition needs make the Government do a re-think on this issue. 
The argument can be made that India has never been Sri Lanka’s friend.  There is very little left for Delhi (never mind Tamil Nadu) to do by way of affirming the fact, and we are not talking about its anti-Sri Lanka position in Geneva.  But there are things that Jayalalithaa and Karunanidhi can insist that Delhi do immediately.

First of all, they can insist that Manmohan Singh issue a directive prohibiting Indians from making use of dual-citizenship facilities proposed by the Sri Lankan Government.   Not because this would allow all kinds of racketeers and terrorist-lovers from South India from setting up base here, altering ethnic composition leading to further wrecking of the reconciliation process, fermenting insurgency and robbing Sri Lankans of jobs (as is alleged in Divulapitiya where an Indian company robs groundwater and has reneged on pledges to employ over a 1000 locals in favor of Indians because ‘there’s a language problem’) and such; because Sri Lanka ‘is a bad place’ and Sri Lankans, especially Sinhalese are ‘bad people’.
Secondly, then can insist that India withdraws from bidding for oil exploration in Sri Lankan waters: ‘Sri Lanka is bad, Sri Lankans are bad and we don’t even want their oil!’  Thirdly, they must prevail upon Delhi to get its spotlessly clean hands off the dirty thing called ‘Sampur’.  Fourthly India should give up the oil tanks: ‘we shall have no truck with Sri Lanka, in whatever form, in whatever deal, whatever business’.  Fifthly, they can tell Delhi to issue a travel advisory stopping Indians from visiting Sri Lanka, whether for business or pleasure.  Sixth, they can ask Delhi to demand that Indian companies (for example Airtel) to cease operations in Sri Lanka: ‘Sri Lanka won’t see another Mahendra Jeep or Maruti Car and they will have to develop their own pharmaceutical industry but who cares?’  Sixthly, IOC can close shop: ‘Let Ceypetco run the petrol sheds!’  The oil tanks must be abandoned forthwith, they can add.

It is unlikely that Delhi will do anything of the kind and not just because of China.  On the other hand, because of China, India will want to retain at least a toe-hold in a country that already has a huge Chinese footprint.  Perhaps it is time for Sri Lanka to call the Tamil Nadu bluff, i.e. preempt Tamil Nadu and save Manmohan Singh the blushes by facilitating all of the above. 
Let’s face it.  The question is not whether or not India should consider Sri Lanka a friend but whether we should or should not calling a spade a spade and call India what it is: Sri Lanka’s No 1 Enemy.  We can of course be nice and be photo-op ‘friends’ as is customary in the doctrine of ‘maintaining appearances’, but do what is best in our interest.  After all, there’s little to lose after all that India has done to cross off the ‘friendly’ adjective in the notion ‘Indo-Lanka relations’.  Now that would really stump Jayalalithaa and Karunanidhi.  Nothing trips trippers than the truth and these two have happily tripped along for far too long. 

How to solve a ‘problem’ like ‘Uthayan’

$
0
0
The ‘Uthayan’ newspaper was attacked a few days ago.  It was not the first time.  Not the second. Not the third.  It was the thirty sixth time that ‘Uthayan’ was attacked.  That it still stands, still publishes and still defies testifies to admirable resilience.

Uthayan, over the years, has been a newspaper that has a clearly identifiable political position and one with clearly identifiable political loyalties. As is the case in such publications, political expedience overrides journalistic ethics. Truth is not important; political convenience is.  Balance is not important; required slant is. Informing is not important; misinforming is.  But wait, isn’t that also what the BBC does, what Al Jazeera does, what Channel 4 does, what people who are invested in political projects do all the time?   
What Uthayan does (or does not do) may be interpreted as attempts to wreck rather than facilitate post-conflict processes of rehabilitation, resettlement, reconstruction and reconciliation, but those who interpret thus need to understand that nothing comes easy.  They need to understand that there will be ‘spoilers’ real or imagined. They need to understand also that good and lasting solutions need to a) factor ‘spoiler’ into the process, and b) deal with spoiler within the larger framework of the law. 

It is not easy, of course.  If it was about money and guns in an earlier era, today its money, guns and media, working in concert of course.  So ‘Uthayan’ is part of that larger story, one could argue.  On the other hand, the moment Uthayan is attacked, the hack gets visibility and respectability, and what is patently slanted is legitimately taken as biblical truth. 
Even if none of this was true, any attack on any establishment or person is an affront to democracy as well as an indictment on the law and order situation in the country.  If any entity is attacked as many times as Uthayan has and no one has been apprehended then it implies that the law enforcement authorities are utterly incompetent or else complicit.  The state can and must do better than this. 

The best way to counter a lie is by confronting it with truth.  There’s a reason why the so-called human rights activists whose safety Navineethan Pillai was ‘concerned’ about can’t find friends outside their tiny circle of party-going, cocktail-sipping, dollar-hungry fellow-travelers: they have been effectively dealt with solid arguments. 
This is why, a couple of weeks ago, attending a session of Colomboscope 2013 devoted to alleged war crimes, where Prof Rajiva Wijesinghe and two spokespersons for the Sri Lankan security forces spoke, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu didn’t utter a word.  No, not out of fear for everyone knows what his positions are and he walks around without looking over his shoulder.  He just doesn’t have the arguments; he’s been undressed enough with logic.

That’s how democracy works.  It doesn’t stop Saravanamuttu from lying through his teeth of course and it won’t stop those who are ready to accept lie as truth and reward with bucks the liar from continuing to harass Sri Lanka at every turn, true.  On the other hand, it stops outsiders from scripting anarchy in this country. 
In the case of the Uthayan, on the other hand, what we’ve seen is action and inaction that not only provide frill to the lie-manufacturing mill, but upsets those who value democratic processes and the democratic culture of engagement, including those who are wont to consider Uthayan as a propagandist rag. 

The same goes for attacks on political opponents, physical or otherwise.  It betrays a reluctance to fight word with word or indeed a certain impotency in debate.  Worse still, it raises the questions of arrogance and implies an inherent weakness when it comes to dealing with criticism. 
The two uniformed gentlemen at Colomboscope, it is reported, showed admirable composure, which only buttressed argument and moreover helped floor critics.  That’s maturity. 

When the Government will get its act together, no one can tell. For now, all that needs to be said is that just as it might be hard to stand with the Uthayan on the same political platform, standing for democracy necessitates an unambiguous condemnation in the strongest terms of the attack. 
We condemn. Unreservedly.

[The Nation 'Editorial', April 7, 2013]
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The LLRC and devolution

$
0
0
The politics of skipping the caveats

When the Government proposed setting up a Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), there were howls of protests from the likes of Jehan Perera and Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu.Many of these I/NGO operators didn’t even appear before the LLRC perhaps fearing that the Commissioners would ask them to submit in full their various comments to the media, in the form of statement or political commentary.When the LLRC finally came out with a ‘Report’, they changed their tune.They said ‘Implement the LLRC Recommendation!’

They forgot, conveniently, that the LLRC had exceeded its mandate.That’s ok.A lot of people, after all, are happy to ‘exceed’.More importantly, they appear to be blissfully unaware of two things. Firstly, that the LLRC was a far cry from a body enacted to draft a constitution. Secondly, some of the recommendations require constitutional amendment and even referenda.A third ‘forget’ can be added: the Government is not bound (as per the mandate-limitation) to implement all of the recommendations.There’s can-do and cannot-do in all this. There is, moreover, ‘done’, ‘doing’ and ‘forget it’ too.There is wanted-speed and doable-speed.

 
What has excited these ladies and gentlemen, and of course some members of the Opposition, is the inclusion of the word ‘devolution’.True, it’s not ‘federalism’, that F-word dominating what passed for ‘political discourse’ when the reins of power were held by patently anti-Sinhala, anti-Buddhist and indeed pro-LTTE, pro-Eelam elements, but then again, in an LTTE-les Sri Lanka of ‘reduced circumstances’, if ‘straw’ was sought, ‘devolution’ was good enough a cling-on.
 
What is most interesting is the fact that true to form, they have taken the LLRC recommendation on devolution totally out of context and have never once referred to the relevant caveats.They would do well to read the points elaborated in Section 9.231 of the LLRC Report.

9.231 Devolution should necessarily be people-centric in nature and the following considerations should be borne in mind –
 
A. Devolution should essentially promote greater harmony and unity and not disharmony and disunity among the people of the country. The promotion of this ‘oneness’ and a common identity should be the principal aim of any form of devolution while protecting and appreciating rich diversity.

B. The focus should be to ensure that the people belonging to all communities are empowered at every level especially in all tiers of Government. Devolution of power should not privilege or disadvantage any ethnic community, and in this sense, should not be discriminatory or seen to be discriminatory by the people belonging to any ethnic community within the country.

C. The democratic empowerment of the people should take place within the broader framework of the promotion and protection of human rights which is a fundamental obligation of the elected government deriving from specific provisions of the Constitution and the Treaty obligations the country has voluntarily undertaken.
D. In addressing the question of devolution two matters require the attention of the government. Firstly, empowering the Local Government institutions to ensure greater peoples’ participation at the grass roots level. Secondly, it is also imperative that the lessons learnt from the shortcomings in the functioning of the Provincial Councils system be taken into account in devising an appropriate system of devolution that addresses the needs of the people. It should at the same time provide for safeguarding the territorial integrity and unity of Sri Lanka whilst fostering its rich diversity.

Let’s take these one by one.Caveat A imposes the condition of ‘harmony’.Now if devolution uses the current provincial boundaries (randomly drawn, let us not forget), which constitute the basis for the (diminished) Eelamist demarcation, if the majority of Tamils people live outside the North and East (for example), how on earth can devolution along these chauvinist lines powered by myth-models and exaggeration inspire anything but suspicion and anxiety among the Sinhalese?They would consider such devolution as ‘Threat to Existence’!There won’t be harmony. ‘Oneness’ would be wrecked.

Caveat B speaks of empowerment.This is good. It calls for much better governance and greater affirmation of citizenship-meaning.One does not need ‘devolution’ for this and if any community feels disadvantaged then all that needs to be remembered is that the felt ‘discrimination’ will continue to prevail in the other 7 provinces (where the majority of Tamils live).Devolution does not combat discrimination; better laws might. 
Caveat C is about human rights.The upholding or subverting of human rights has nothing to do with the structure of the state (for example, whether it is a federal, unitary or other arrangement).So Caveat C, like Caveat B, is an add-on that is not devolution-specific.
 
Finally, Caveat D.It is about ‘building on what we have’, i.e. the local government institutions.It is about greater and meaningful participation.Such ‘democracy,’ again does not require devolution as per the 13th Amendment, 13 Plus posturing etc., but about scripting in checks and balances into the relevant articles of the constitution.Caveat D also unequivocally salutes the need to ‘provide for safeguarding the territorial integrity and unity of Sri Lanka whilst fostering its rich diversity’.The devolution debate has gone too far with taking as ‘fact’ and ‘legitimate’ the extrapolations of Tamil chauvinism for any power-devolution to established provincial lines not be seen as a threat to territorial integrity and unity.
 
Take all these caveats and power devolution to existing lines can be safely ruled out as ‘not in line with LLRC recommendations’.The only devolution that abides by these caveats, then, is a formulation that trashes current provincial boundaries and re-draws geographical units in more scientific (e.g. based on river-basins) ways with close attention to ensuring that no community, large or small, feels threatened.
 
Given all this, one thing is clear: those who have been waving the LLRC Report have just seen one word, devolution.That, or else, they are intellectually dishonest.Take your pick!

[Published in THE NATION, April 7, 2013]

The King of Raigam

$
0
0

There are landmark moments in the life of every human being.  Turning points, some might say, where the road less traveled was opted for or when charted path was abandoned.  Destiny, some might say.  Ordained by karma, perhaps.  People make choices though. They are moved by situations, sometimes by the action of another, a word that jumped out of a comment and other random things. 


It is not unusual, though, for a man to find inspiration and recognize ‘turning point’ in a dying person’s last words, especially if that person happened to be his father.  Almost thirty years ago, a man who was dying of cancer spoke to his son, Ravi.  Here’s the translation.

‘I had many hopes. I wanted to see you become an engineer.  You however chose to study in the Commerce stream. I didn’t object, even though I knew that you really didn’t choose those subjects because you were interested in that field.  Then you wanted to get into gemming. I didn’t object.  Remember one thing: you are a man who can accomplish anything if you put your heart to it.  Even a PhD.    I am happy that you got into the university.  If you do get a PhD, it would make me very happy.’

The old man was crying at this point. 
‘Look after the others, they too need to be successful.  Put a stop to your mischievous ways.’

The old man was a mathematics teacher.  He considered astrology a science involving mathematical calculation. He did not indulge in beseeching to ‘gods’ and other such practices. In fact when well-meaning relations had suggested the same he had chased them away from his bed.  He shared a secret with his son:
‘When I checked your horoscope, there was reason to be disappointed.  It indicated that you could very well end up being one of the most ruthless criminals in the country.  On the other hand, it also indicated that if you do things right, you could rise to the top in any field of your choice.  Don’t get stuck in a government office but do something for the people.’

Then he died.
It had rained hard that day, but the funeral was very well attended because the old man was a much loved teacher and a highly respected member of the community.  It was well attended, also, because the son was an accomplished truant, highly popular among the youth of Horana.  

After the funeral, as he was chatting with his friends, Ravi overheard a conversation between two elderly men.  One of them had said ‘Gunapala mahaththayage paula ivarai dan…ledeta saehenna viyadam kara, ithuru tika moda putha kai!’ [ ‘Gunapala Mahaththaya’s family is finished now; a lot was spent on his illness and the foolish son will waste whatever is left!’].
Ravi recognized the man, one Piyaratne, referred to as Piyaratne Maama:  ‘I once asked him for his bicycle to go see Vesak.  He said ‘thamuse oka gahakata heththu karala yai…kauru hari geniyanava…..ethakota gevanne kohomada?’ [You will leave it by a tree, someone will steal it; how would you repay the loss?].  The boy clearly had a reputation and one which warranted that seemingly caustic comment at the funeral.

‘I felt helpless. The full weight of responsibility had fallen on me. Relatives couldn’t help.  That comment helped.  I wanted to teach him a lesson. No, it was not about revenge.  It was a challenge.  In fact he never knew what that comment did to me.  He was correct in his reading and in his conclusions because it was based on how he saw me and how I was at the time. I would meet him years later, but I never told him this story.  That’s not important.’
Ravi Liyanage, by admission, was quite a naughty boy when he was young.  He hails from Horana, the heart of the historical Raigam Korale.  He was the second son in a family of 2 boys and 3 girls. The eldest had died young. He has an older sister and two younger sisters, twins.

His mother Subarath Menike was from Sabaragamuwa. He attended the pre-school in Kananwila, Yahalakele, about 3km from Horana, where she taught.  David Gunapala Liyanage was a mathematics teacher at Taxila Central College from where he retired as Vice Principal.  Ravi attended Sri Palee until Grade 5, when he passed the scholarship exam and entered his father’s school. 

Education was important, he remembers.  His paternal grandfather had been a mason who was skilled, very creative and wanted to educate his two sons.  Neither got into university but both studied up to the Matriculation and were good in their English.  Gunapala Liyanage, naturally, wanted his children to go further than he did. 

‘There was a photograph of C.W.W. Kannangara hanging on a wall in our house.  Thaththa put it up. It was a constant reminder to all of us about the importance of education.  He didn’t require us to worship that photograph but I did.’  That photograph now hangs in his plush office at ‘The Kingdom of Raigam’.   
Ravi had been good at Mathematics.  After his O/Ls, his father naturally wanted him to study in the maths stream. Ravi decided against it even though he secured Distinctions in both Mathematics and Science.  The reason was simple.  His father, who was the only non-graduate to teach Pure and Applied Mathematics was an excellent teacher but a very strict one too.  He didn’t want to be in his father’s class!

So he said ‘commerce’.  At that time no one really knew what to do with a commerce education.  His father had asked him why: ‘Why commerce?  You can’t become a doctor because you can’t cram, but you could become an engineer’

‘I said I wanted to become a businessman.  It just popped out of my mouth.  I really hadn’t thought about it.  He didn’t say “don’t”, but suggested that I take Pure Mathematics instead of Logic or Geography.  That wouldn’t have solved my problem because it would have still put me in his class! The truth is that no one in my family had ever done business. And yet he didn’t stop me.’
He was a naughty boy.  He got into trouble with his teachers.  He left school without doing his A/Ls.  He had become an embarrassment to his father, who opted to retire early.  Years later, he made a confession to Ravi.  He had seen his students who were also Ravi’s contemporaries obtain good results and proceed to Moratuwa University.  He confessed that he felt sad and jealous.  He had then told himself that it is wrong to feel jealous. 

‘He was a very religious person.  He organized meditation programs and was involved in the Bauddha Sangamaya of the school.  He was a simple man who turned farmer after he returned from school, entering the paddy field with just his loin cloth or amude. He was a philosophy, a strong advocate of “Buddhism devoid of deities”.  He was generous.  After the harvest he would distribute excess paddy among the landless in the village. So he had what it took to combat things like envy and to remind himself of his own thinking on education, that all children must be educated, not just his.’
Ravi, thanks to his truancy, gave up his studies, but only temporarily.  

‘I decided I would try my hand at gem mining. I went to my mother’s village in Ellawala and started working with my cousins.  My father didn’t stop me, but I later realized that he had been quite strategic.  He gave me 5000 rupees but had told my cousins to make sure I won’t make any profit from a single stone. 
‘I came back and sat for the A/Ls again, but from Sri Palee.  I came third in the Kalutara District.  I entered Jayawardenapura University in late 1983, along with a Mahapola Merit Scholarship. My father had by then been diagnosed with cancer. He passed away during the Orientation Program.’

The university system collapsed due to the second JVP insurrection.  During this time he worked in a multinational company as a Trainee Executive.  He eventually graduated with a Second Class (Lower Division).  He sat for and passed the Customs Exam, coming 3rd out of 7000 applicants (8thafter the interview, he said).  I took it up because my mother wanted me to do a government job.
Ravi’s education did not stop with his degree.  He obtained an MBA from Colombo University, a Diploma in Marketing from SLIDA and also has certification from the Chartered Institute of Marketing. 

‘I wanted to be a gemologist.  So I got a Gemology Diploma (Moratuwa University).  I am also a Fellow of the Gemological Association, UK.  In 1990 I became a gem appraiser in the Customs.  At the time I wanted to someday head the Gem Unit.    Customs gave me a lot of freedom and that’s how I was able to continue my studies.  I even went to Belgium to study Diamond Grading and as a result had to drop out of an MSc in Management at Jayawardenapura.  I started my PhD in Business Administration in 2000, enrolling in a split program between Lacrosse University, Michigan and the University of Wisconsin with research in Australia.  This was because of what my father told me on his deathbed.’
So how did this truant gem appraiser end up as King of Raigam? 

It happened when his wife had been posted to the Matara Hospital in 1996-7.  There he met a batchmate, by then a Chartered Accountant working for Harischandra Mills.  He came into the story later however.  One day he had being having a chat with iis classmate at Taksila, Piyananada Kularatne, Chairman of MDK and a man from the same village, who often suggested that they start a business and Kishan Theadore (of Kobian Technilogies) who had met him ‘half way in the customs journey’ and was at that time Sales Manager, Jagath Robotics.  
The ‘business idea’ was once again brought up. Ravi had remembered his mother who would often get upset on Poya days because of the weevils in the TVP packets.   He suggested that they could go for better packaging.

That’s how ‘Raigam’ was born.  The name was natural given the location and of course the historical weight.  The friends had all invested.  The rest, as they say, ‘is history’.  From value addition, they moved to production itself.  They went for different textures and flavors, freeing ‘TVP’ from the veggie-bind and thereby expanding the market boundaries.  That diversification was taken to another level with ‘Raigam’ moving into other food products, cosmetics, household items and becoming a key stakeholder in the salt industry. 
Through it all, Dr. Ravi Fernando has remained a simple man from Horana who has not ventured too far from the cultural ethos and philosophical bent embodied by his father.   He remembers those last words of advice well.

‘There’s only so much wealth that I need.  My wife earns enough for both of us to live comfortably.  I believe that there’s a lot more we can do for our people. ‘
A nationalist of a pragmatic kind, he was instrumental in developing ‘the second rice’ or deveni batha, marketing rice noodles as a staple option.  Indeed, in all product development activities and new business ventures, this King of Raigam is constantly conscious of benefit to fellow citizen and nation.  They are as important as the basic assessment of marginal costs and marginal benefits of the rupees and cents kind. 

He is not religious in the way his father was: ‘This may be because he made us worship at a special shrine room he had built out of naa (Iron Wood) upstairs; but I abide by the dhamma, it is my faith and my ultimate protection although I am not a temple-going kind of Buddhist’.
A naughty boy from a small village close to Horana didn’t have it easy but he clearly had what it takes to become King.  His crown, however, doesn’t appear too heavy. 

To this day, the portrait of C.W.W. Kannangara in his office reminds him constantly of the value of education and moreover how much he owes free education.  To this day, before leaving his house, this truant son of a meditative teacher-farmer acknowledges with clasped hands all that his father gave him.
A man who caught a word at an auspicious moment, paused and took a path that was not in mind-map until then.  Today, what he did and does is a monument and a landmark not just for him, his family and his village, but the nation as a whole. 

[Published in THE NATION, April 7, 2013]

The ‘Vigil’ that I saw

$
0
0

‘Buddhist Questioning Bodu Bala Sena’
Those who participated or wanted to participate in the candle-light vigil organized by a set of people calling themselves ‘Buddhists Questioning Bodu Bala Sena’, those who witnessed what happened or part of what happened, those who saw images and footage, and others who generally comment on issues such as religious tolerance, democracy, human rights etc, will no doubt articulate their respective versions.  This is mine, but to illustrate the point of multiple narrative/interpretation, I will weave into my narrative some narrative comments of a friend.

This person, a Muslim, I have never met.  I have communicated with him for several years though and I would not hesitate to claim that a more patriotic Sri Lankan is hard to find.  In his writings I’ve noticed a humanity that is congruent with the best sentiments on the subject in any religious doctrine.  He is strong in his faith but is respectful of other faiths and has the wisdom to note the commonalities and learn the differences if only to understand his fellow-creatures of different religious persuasion. 
He stated on Facebook, ‘On my way to the vigil’.  It was just after 7.00pm when I left my office.  I was disappointed that I would get late [I was planning to hold a lit candle, which is why I ‘shared’ more than once on Facebook the notice regarding the event].  Just as I left, the person who informed me about the event, a Muslim who knows as much or more about Buddhism as I do called me.  He informed me that the Police had moved in to stop the vigil.  I thought I would go home, but a minute later, another friend called to say, ‘they are arresting people’.  I was upset and a tad angry, and decided I would go there anyway.  Another colleague called and said he had called a mutual friend who was planning to attend the vigil and that she had quickly said ‘they are coming to arrest us’.  I called her and found that those who had turned up for the vigil were not outside the Sambuddhatva Jayanthi Mandiraya (the venue) but opposite the Police Park. I parked my car on Keppetipola Mawatha and ran all the way to where two clearly identifiable groups (event attendees and members/supporters of the Bodu Bala Sena) with half a dozen or more police officers. 

Among those who were opposed to the vigil, I recognized two, a young man who was associated with the Sihala Urumaya way back in 2000 and another young man whom I’ve had on occasion associated with professionally.  I also found out that Dilantha Vithanage, spokesperson for the BBS was also present (he did a lot of talking –with the police, to the cameras and to his political opponents).  There were also several bikkhus who did a lot of talking. They were agitated, but not more and not less than their opposites were agitated. If I were to caricature, I would say the only difference was that the former spoke in Sinhala and the latter in English (I heard the F-word, several times). 
I was more surprised, I must admit, when I took in the ‘attendees’.  I had expected the crowd, even if it was small, to be made up of a majority of Buddhists from all walks of life.  I can’t be blamed for expecting this because this was supposed to be an event organized by ‘Buddhists’.  There must have been Buddhists. Some claimed they were and I have no reason to doubt them.  But there were non-Buddhists in proportions that were a fair distance away from national ratios. There is nothing wrong in non-Buddhists taking part in such a vigil. In fact, even if one counted out legitimate fears of and opposition to the BBS as reason to attend, it is certainly legitimate (and laudable) that non-Buddhists decided to stand with Buddhists on an issue like this. 

I was disappointed that there was little to tell me that the group was made up of people outside of the ‘facebooking’, English-speaking middle and upper-middle class.  I was less disappointed than perturbed when I noticed that in that group there were individuals who have been violently anti-Buddhist and anti-Sinhala, including those who have cheered the LTTE at times or white-washed that outfit as ‘logical’ necessity of being against the party/leadership they did not support in various elections since 2004. There were identifiable NGO activists and others who regularly put their names on political petitions and attend political rallies of a particular political persuasion.  Nothing wrong there, but this is not the picture I expected to see and it is not a picture I would have enjoyed being part of.   
All that mattered, from this point on, was to do what I could (precious little, I know) to stop things from getting worse.  I spoke to the two young men I knew, who were not ‘talkers’.  I said something to the following effect: ‘Look, I recognize that these people (pointing to the event-attendees) have their ideological and political agenda, that some of them are not as innocent as they claim to be. I do recognize that among them are people who knew that organizing this at the Sambuddhatva Jayanthi Mandiraya was provocative and bound to elicit a response (I had believed, when noting the venue, that all necessary sanctions had been obtained), but regardless of all this, they just came to light a candle.  It was not violence.  Tell the haamuduruwo to let it go.  This is not helping anyone.’ 

I was accosted at one point by a person who had come to hold a candle.  I recognized her as a former employee at the Peace Secretariate in the good old CFA days, an individual who has cosy relations with the notorious National Peace Council.  She wanted to know why the Police had stopped a peaceful vigil.  I told her that she should ask that from the Police, but told her also to look around the ‘crowd’. I told her that I believed that it was an event organized deliberately to provoke (even if some or even most of the participants were unaware of the fact or did not or did not want to believe it).  She said, ‘If the Bodu Bala Sena can attack Fashion Bug, what’s wrong with us protesting peacefully outside the Sambuddha Jayanthi Mandiraya?’  The BBS did not attack Fashion Bug, but the BBS did actively incite, true.  What is important here is that she certainly wasn’t there to be a ‘Better Buddhist’, but had a political agenda that had little to do with peace, reconciliation and tolerance.    
In that crowd of people I recognized individuals whom I have never associated with the pernicious politics of the NGO Mafia; decent, good-hearted, law-abiding individuals of different faiths, who were probably as dismayed and agitated by recent developments, individuals who probably shared by antipathies towards the BBS, with whom I would never feel ashamed to stand.  It was my error to assume that they were the people I was planning to stand with.  Just as I will not stand with the BBS, neither will I stand with some of the operators who, in hindsight, orchestrated the whole event.

Several persons had been arrested just before I got there and I later found out that they had been quickly released.  There was no reason to arrest anyone.  I believe that the Police acted in a highhanded manner and although there is relief that they were released, the act of arrest was wrong and is unreservedly condemned. 
My Muslim friend wrote, ‘What's the ugliest thing in uniform? - a biased cop. I saw one today declaring pompously that everyone gathered at the vigil was either Muslim, Catholic or Tamil. My foot ached to give him a well-directed kick in that sweet spot right in the groove!’ I heard that too.  The Police Officer can’t be faulted if he wondered how a ‘Buddhists against BBS’ event had so many non-Buddhists.  It was a sweeping generalization nevertheless and the ethno-religious composition is anyway not relevant to the matter of peaceful, democratic action, even if there was nothing innocent in intent and design.    

He also commented, ‘The BBS goons were screaming NGO kaarayo!’  I heard that too.  Correct description (in part at least), but that does not de-legitimize action.  He also observed, wryly, Police at the scene disallowing peaceful protest. A new one for our democracy.’   It could have got worse, though, not because of him and others like him, but because ‘making it worse’ would have suited a lot of people. On both sides.  A point I made to one of the Police Officers. 
He may have not heard this, but someone referred to the anti-BBS ‘Buddhists’ as ‘Nightclub Buddhists’. Strange juxtaposition and descriptive, yes, but it also raised questions of social status, class, lifestyle etc.  A Buddhist is a Buddhist, whether he/she wears white or black, a sil redda or jeans, but clothes mark and they mark well.  This was no Buddhist Cross-section, that much was apparent to me.

Then he said, ‘Never felt so much about a cause. Never participated in something like this. Outrage of decent people was vented against those who were trying to demonize and degrade their religion.’  I identify with the cause. I do not agree with the description of those he stood with, though.  
There were good people there. There were people who were angry.  There were people talking past each other. There were people who refused to see the make-up of who they stood with.  I came to stand with a certain group against the BBS.  Had I come earlier, I am pretty sure I would not have lit a candle, because people make the cause and that too is something I take into account.  I would have gone away. 

As it turned out, I got there late and stayed until the two groups went their separate ways. I didn’t see and hear everything, but I’ve reported what I did see and hear and have shared my observations.  That’s all. 
My Muslim friend concluded, ‘One unused candle: for another day and another time.’  That is the saddest and yet most empowering line I heard tonight. 

A vasa-visa-less Avurudda

$
0
0
It is customary to wish each other a happy and prosperous new year, typically, in Sinhala, ‘an Aluth Avurudda overflowering in kiri and peni’.  Overflowing abundance is a perennially valid wish, however harsh the circumstances. 

Years ago, the Chief (and sole) Incumbent of the Muhudu Maha Viharaya, Ven. Katharagama Sirirathana Thero, resisting encroachment by Muslim residents and neglected so thoroughly by a nation and a community, said with a wry smile On April 14th, a day when kiribath is cooked in all corners of the country, I could only eat bread.’   The Venerable Thero, speaking on the LTTE, showed the wisdom, foresight and compassion of the doctrine he subscribed to: ‘They are not tigers, they are kittens’.  This was in 2006. Three years later, the difference between mewl and roar was determined in no uncertain terms. 
We do not know what the Venerable Thero would partake this morning of the Aluth Avurudda, especially given the uncertainties, fears, apprehensions and such produced by self-appointed spokespersons for various religious communities, but given his tenacity we can be assured that he would seek refuge, again and again, in the Buddha Vacana. 

Today there is no LTTE, not as kitten and not as tiger.  Today there are other threats, some external and some local, some from the top and some from the bottom.  Today there is poison (vasa-visa) of a different kind.  Religious intolerance, for example.  Then there are less metaphoric poisons, like pesticides.  There are structures and laws that exist but are not referenced enough, protective mechanisms that are not implemented, collusion between poisoner and authorities mandated to scrutinize and protect.  Even as we wish for the proverbial kiriyen-peniyen-sapiri  we spray these poisons or consume them, knowingly or unknowingly.  Greater vigilance, greater resolve and greater sensitivity to the world around us might help if not right now, then later, if not for ourselves then our children.  
Not every household celebrates and not every household celebrates in the same way.  Still, there is no other time in the year when the overwhelming majority of people strike a match, perform rites as per conviction, partake of food etc., all at moments specified previously.  That’s solidarity. That’s togetherness that transcends all differences.  No community is left out here, for Avurudu is not the preserve of the Sinhalese or Buddhists, Tamils or Hindus, it is a moment of common celebration if not in affirmation of custom then in the receiving of neighborly goodness and giving. 

These are not the best of times, but surely these are not the worst of times either.   Not exactly times of abundance but still times when many small mercies can be remembered and celebrated, across the length and breadth of the land.  In the most humble of kitchens there will be a Tamil mother, lighting a lamp, in the humblest breakfast table a Sinhala father would feed his children and they would all, hearts endowed with the fullness of giving offer sweetmeats and plantains to their Muslim, Christian and Burgher neighbors. 
Renewal, then, is not about starting with a clean slate after erasing old enmities among family members, but reaffirming solidarities that are ancient, enduring and resistant to the ruptures sought by the intolerant and extreme.  It is about the extirpation of poison, from mind and body, community and culture, the water we drink and the earth we rarely walk with the respect it deserves for holding us in all our infirmities and all our vile, human ways.

[The Nation Editorial, April 14, 2013] 
Viewing all 2513 articles
Browse latest View live