A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Name Dropping Argument
( March 21, 2017, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) From
the very first sentence of his confused response to my article “A Ray
of Hope from Australia: Lessons for Sri Lanka,” Vinod Munesinghe today (The Island, 21 March 2017)
has revealed his ideological orientation of ‘servitude to political
regimes’ and ‘xenophobic nationalism’ which are regrettably unhealthy,
in my opinion, for a democratic political culture in Sri Lanka.
He says, “Perhaps symptomatic of the extent to which the Yahapalanaya
regime has failed to fulfil its promises is that its supporters [Laksiri
Fernando] among the intelligentsia are now distancing themselves from
it.”
Servile Orientation
He is at least surprised in his ‘servile orientation’ to political
regimes that I am critical of the present regime although supported
political change in January 2015! He should know that my first critical
article of the present regime came in May 2015 on the bond issue
(“Cabral is no excuse for Mahendran,” Colombo Telegraph, 23 May 2015).
Let me raise another similar point. It is well known that I did support
Mahinda Rajapaksa at the 2010 elections. Does that mean that I should
have continuously supported MR or his regime? That is what he implies.
This is what I mean by ‘servile thinking’ inimical to democracy. People
should be able to take independent positions, at times taking
unequivocal political decisions.
He repeats six times an unfounded accusation against me that “One of the
principal reasons why intellectuals such as Fernando, who were
associated with the international non-governmental organisation (INGO)
sector, threw themselves so heartily into the Yahapalana camp.” These
are cheap propaganda with political motives. It is a common tactic to
call NGO names to discredit people. Didn’t Mahinda Rajapaksa once
accused Dayan Jayatilleka also working on a NGO agenda?
As a matter of fact, I have never been associated with NGOs in Sri Lanka
or INGOs, although I have worked as a professional (Secretary for
Asia-Pacific) for the World University Service (WUS) in Geneva during
1984-1991. WUS was an international association of academics all over
the world, although sometimes called a NGO. There were so many different
Sri Lankan academics who were associated with WUS and I don’t want to
mention their names unnecessarily.
Moreover, I don’t see anything wrong in anyone associating with NGOs or
INGOs as far as they represent the national or the international civil
society. One can be supportive or critical of them, depending on the
issues and their activities. Therefore, I do consider the point-blank
opposition to NGOs or INGOs as an anti-democratic trend and part of
‘insular/extremist nationalist policies’ whether it is from the Joint
Opposition or others.
Our Bunyips!
I was amused to hear about Moonesinghe’s interpretation of ‘Bunyip’
Aristocracy in Australia! He says “Far from being nationalist, the right
wing of the Australian political spectrum is the remnant of the Bunyip
Aristocracy, which fought tooth and nail against separation from Britain
– only achieved in 1986.”
There is/was no such a real Aristocracy in Australia. It was a term
coined in 1853 by Daniel Deniehy to ridicule those who pretended that
they were of aristocratic ancestry. It is an indigenous name for a
mythical creature. There can be similar pretence in Sri Lanka. I really
don’t know whether Moonesighe likes to consider some of the people in
the Joint Opposition (at the top) as Bunyips, because they are also
pretending. Only difference being that the Australian Bunyips pretended
to be linked to the British aristocracy and our Bunyips pretend to be
linked to ancient royals or ‘radalayas.’ Take for example, the bizarre
song “Ayubowewa Maha Rajaneni” by Saheli Gamage, otherwise sung in a
sweet voice. This is axiomatic of our Bunyips.
The right wing in Australia, when we refer to them in political terms,
is based mainly on ideology and policies. The National Party is such a
party traditionally representing the regional interests and conservative
politics. Their policies on migration (particularly Asian), ethnic
minorities and multiculturalism are both right wing and nationalist.
However, when compared to the ‘Australia First’ or ‘One Nation’ of
Pauline Hansen, they appear to be quite ‘soft.’ To Moonesighe, the right
wing is not nationalist; just aristocrats. Is it the same in Sri Lanka?
According to him, even Paulin Hansen is not an extremist nationalist,
but a Bunyip aristocrat. The main political banner of Hansen today is
against Muslims and Islam.
Extremist Views
Let me set aside his slight that “Fernando… is not quite au fait with
the politics of his chosen domicile.” But his attempt to say, apart from
Bunyian business, that Australia achieved independence or separation
only in 1986 is spurious. Yes, there were past links (still are) and
technically there were possibilities for the UK to legislate for
Australia or an appeal from Australia to go to a British Court. But
those were not in operation. They were formally terminated through the
Australia Act 1986.
However, to argue that Australia didn’t have independence until 1986 is
quite an extreme point of view. It is like arguing that Sri Lanka only
achieved independence in November 1971, after the abolition of appeals
to the Privy Council, or in 1972 with the New Republican Constitution. I
am sure Moonesighe’s line of argument is in that direction which I call
‘insular/extremist nationalism.’ At the next turn, he might even
suggest to readjust Sri Lanka’s independence-day. These are unnecessary
political arguments to confuse people and arouse nationalist emotions.
Any drive for independence of any country takes different steps and
stages.
Name Dropping
What a load of name dropping that Moonesinghe has unleashed to painfully
argue that I have equated ‘anti-colonial struggles’ with ‘far-right
racism.’ That is his own imagination and not mine. I am not sure whether
he was even born when I wrote “Jathika Viyaparaya, Viyavastha Vardenaya
and Vamansika Viyaparaye Upatha” (Nationalist Movement, Constitutional
Development and Origins of the Left Movement) in 1974. But to me,
anti-colonial struggle is not an ethno-nationalist struggle, Sinhala or
Tamil, in the case of Sri Lanka.
To come back to his name dropping, he talks about Louis Farrakhan,
Frantz Fanon, George Padmore, Steve Biko, Marshal Tito and then comes to
Sirimavo Bandaranaike and to Anagarika Dharmapala. He goes around
countries like America, South Africa, Kenya, Vietnam, Palestine,
Czechoslovakia, Uganda, Serbia, and India in a confused virtual sojourn
in responding to simple and direct article. When he comes to Sri Lanka,
the following is what he says.
Dangerous Pronouncements
To quote him: “The British Empire used Sri Lanka as something of a
test-tube in this [sic]: before settling on the Burghers, North-East
Tamils and the Muslims, they experimented, with little success, with
introducing classes of Chinese and Thanjavur Christian landholders into
the mix.”
What a nonsense of historical garbage? It is well accepted that the
British used ‘divided and rule’ strategies to keep the colonial people
under subjugation. This is accepted by their own historians. But the
claim that the ‘Burghers, North-East Tamils and the Muslims’ were
settled in this country by the British is not only nonsense, but also
dangerous in terms of politics. He has not quoted any historical source.
I would like to ask whether the Joint Opposition subscribes to these views.
This kind of a theory could lead to xenophobic nationalism, ethnic cleansing and already has clear traits of racism.