Hype Dark (SriLankan)

The warped logic behind the London demonstrations

2009-04-12T14:33:22Z

Today in London we witnessed one of the largest demonstrations we have seen against the Sri Lankan government's ongoing war against the LTTE. My thoughts on those demonstrations, as a moderate Sinhalese who is more often than not highly critical of the actions of the Sri Lankan government, are as follows, and in my argument I make a single assumption: that the sole concern of such demonstrations is to prevent the further deaths of innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.

First, I would like to say that yes, we see your point. We see the news, the youtube videos, and the pictures of the hundreds of innocent civilians who are caught in the cross fire. As a Sri Lankan, I too am appalled by the deaths of my fellow countrymen.

But such demonstrations demanding that the Sri Lankan govt. immediately agree to a ceasefire are misplaced.

It is widely acknowledged that these innocent civilians are being held as human shields by the LTTE itself. This has been confirmed by various International Agencies which have been providing humanitarian assistance in the area. In fact, the United Nations has repeatedly called on the LTTE to cease using innocent civilians as human shields, and just today, the Co-Chairs comprising of the likes of Japan and the EU have also followed suit. Thus, I think it fair to say that there is credible evidence that those innocent civilians are being held against their will by the LTTE.

If that be the case, then isn't the more logical course of action for all those who are concerned about the deaths of these innocent civilians to call for the LTTE to cease this cruel practice? If, as the claim is, the foremost concern is the safety of those innocent civilians, then should not the rallies, the hunger strikes, and the incessant chanting be channelled towards convincing the top brass of the LTTE to let those innocents leave the war zone, so that the LTTE can face the Sri Lankan Army on its own? (without the help of innocent women and children?)

It is indisputable that the Sri Lankan government is winning this war. Any military analyst will know that the only reason the LTTE continues to fight today is because it continues to use innocent civilians as human shields. The LTTE, which claims to fight for the Thamil people, are more than willing to sacrifice the lives of those very people simply to save themselves from defeat. If one has the interests of those innocent civilians as their sole concern in calling for a ceasefire, then how can it be that the demand is against the Sri Lankan government to call a ceasefire, and not for the LTTE to cease its cowardly practice of using innocent women and children to save itself from defeat? And regrettably, if that is not one of the demands, then the only logical conclusion one can make is that such demonstrators are seeking the survival of the LTTE under the pretext of saving the innocent Sri Lankans that are caught in the crossfire � a most alarming conclusion.

To put an end to collateral damage, one needs to put an end to the war. To put an end to the war, mere demonstrations about collateral damage will not suffice. It did not bear fruit with the Israel/Palestine conflict, and it will not do so here. Instead, one needs to address the underlying problem that is the cause of the war. The cause of the war is a terrorist organisation seeking a separate state, an aim that is unsurprisingly unacceptable to a sovereign nation. But if that organisation were to recognize that continued fighting simply places the lives of thousands of innocent civilians it claims to represent at the risk of death, and release those civilians from their clutches, this war would end tomorrow, and consequently, the end of collateral damage would follow. There would be no more gunfire; there would be no more death.

A few concluding words to a rational thinker: if you claim to solely have the interests of the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire at heart, then it is only logical that you take the course of action that is most likely to prevent further innocent deaths. The LTTE is 95% militarily defeated, and they will not come back from this. If that be the case, then is it reasonable to ask the imminent victor to cease the war? Instead, is it so unreasonable to ask for the LTTE to release these civilians and ensure their safety?

Listening Post - Conflict coverage in Sri Lanka

2009-03-14T14:21:16Z

Al Jazeera wanted to hear the views of a Sri Lankan student as part of their Listening Post weekly news program (8:17 in).

The Sri Lankan Lion

2009-03-09T00:01:31Z

An interesting issue that has captured my mind is the issue of patriotism during a war, especially in relation to the island Sri Lanka, my home, which has seen decades of war between the Sri Lankan government and the rebels, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, an outfit branded as a terrorist organisation by the US, the EU, and Australia, to name just a few.

What is patriotism? What does patriotism require a patriot to do in times of war? Having spoken to various Sri Lankans, predominantly Sinhalese students, I have been fascinated to see this idea of the "Sri Lankan lion", the so-called patriot who loves his country, who strongly believes that the LTTE be wiped out and the country be rid of terrorism, and unfortunately, who in the end believes that Sri Lanka is a country for the Sinhalese Buddhist majority.

Now I am a Sinhalese too; I was born in a rural village, went to an affluent school in the City simply because my parents sacrificed their lives for mine, and the only thing I did differently was come to university in a different country. I think I qualify as a Sri Lankan Sinhalese Buddhist.

But then why, I constantly wonder, do I not feel the same strong views as the "Sri Lankan Lion"? He who believes that Sri Lanka is the greatest country on earth, that Sri Lanka does not require Western help to see development, that "Western media" are all biased towards our country, that they are all pursuing their own agendas of mud-slinging against the Sri Lankan government which is fighting a humanitarian war against terrorism to save the Tamil people from the clutches of years of brutality.

Firstly, as great a country as we are, Sri Lanka does need the help of Western donors, not only for development, but for sustainment. For months now, the govt. and the Central Bank have repeatedly assured its people that the economy is in great shape, and that we are more than capable of sustaining ourselves. There have been months of "patriotic" rhetoric that our economy is capable of withstanding the global financial crisis, and any shortcomings there may be are a direct result of the global economic meltdown, and has nothing to do with how incompetent our govt. is at handling what gives our people its daily rice and dhal. This has certainly helped the "Sri Lankan Lion" euphoria that the West is our enemy, and that we have proved time and time again how our country does not need Western help to survive.

It appears now, however, that we are facing a balance of payment crisis of epic proportions which has forced us to seek a financial bailout of $1.9 billion from the International Monetary Fund. But what the "Sri Lankan Lion" would say to this, with a great sense of sarcasm mind you, would be to ask me to look at the United States, the EU, and ask if those so-called great powers are faring any better. Herein lies the core ideology of the Lion, and it is an ideology that has been used time and time again by the likes of Joseph Stalin, and Mao Se Tung. Whenever one would criticise an aspect of the country, the "Sri Lankan Lion", without attempting to rationalise the merits/demerits of such criticism, simply resorts to the nationalist statement that the 'great West' is not faring any better.

To this, I can only say that yes, Sri Lanka has been affected by the global financial crisis, but the current state of the economy has little to do with this � this crisis has been propagated by years of excessive fiscal spending, vast trade deficits, corruption and waste; it is most interesting to note that the Sri Lankan cabinet comprises of 115 ministers for its 19 million population (a number far greater than countries with more than a 100 times its population, the United States, India, the UK, and China). Right now, our nation is borrowing money to pay back borrowed money; and yet, according to our government, we have never been better.

So I ask myself, should the ordinary rural voter care?

The ordinary voter on most days struggles to make enough money to survive; while the ordinary farmer in Hambantota struggles to make enough to feed his family, his representatives, fully clad in Sinhala "national dress", drive around Colombo in the most luxurious vehicles (all bought tax-free mind you) surrounded by a little army to protect them. This representative who claims to fight for the poor, ironically lives in a house that is worth more than 20 times the money the farmer will earn in his life time. While the farmer struggles to live, his representatives help themselves to every possible benefit they can scam out of the State.

Why do these rural voters continue to vote for such a government? Perhaps, I tell myself, because of the war. Because the security forces are winning the war, there is a patriotic fever in Sri Lanka. Ironically, this farmer has never set foot outside of Anuradhapura, nor has he ever seen a Tamil Tiger. But yet, he is willing to sacrifice his entire life for this so-called war against terrorism.

Then let us talk about media freedom; Sri Lanka has consistently ranked as one of the most dangerous places for journalists to operate in the world. But as such a ranking system is done by a "Western" organisation such as the Human Rights Watch, it is immediately branded as biased. And needless to say, the farmer believes this.

In the past 3 years, more than 17 journalists have been killed in Sri Lanka. Lasantha Wickremetunge, a journalist known widely for his hard hitting criticism of the government was murdered in broad daylight by a group of unidentified gunmen within a high security zone. When an ordinary Sri Lankan such as myself leaves home to get into Colombo, I am stopped at least 2-3 times by police and army checkpoints. Nevertheless, a group of armed gunmen in motorbikes are able to murder a well-known journalist, and get away in broad daylight within a high security zone. When the BBC correspondent to Sri Lanka (whom the "Sri Lankan Lion" by definition has to brand is biased simply because he is from the West) queries Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse as to this, Rajapakse laughs hysterically. As the nation head of Defence, one would hope that he would at least express sadness at the death of this journalist, and at least offer the empty words of 'conducting a swift investigation' to find the perpetrators (obviously a statement which would not amount to anything); instead, Rajapakse asks the BBC correspondent "Who is Lasantha", that he is a mere tabloid journalist, and that with thousands dying in the North, what is one life.

Why should the ordinary farmer care about the death of one journalist? To be honest, it does not surprise me that the ordinary farmer doesn't. Media freedom means very little to him; he will be content with going on with his daily life, and the fact that a major voice of dissent has been silenced means little to him. Such be the failings of democracy I suppose.

Finally, being a Sri Lankan Sinhalese Buddhist, why am I not so upbeat about our winning this war against the LTTE? Simply put, because the Tamil people have never been more vulnerable. The victory of the govt. against the LTTE will mean just one thing; the Sinhalese nationalist government will have little incentive to genuinely seek a political settlement. Mahinda Rajapakse will go through his general empty rhetoric of giving rights that were for so long denied to the Tamil people; perhaps with the insistence of Western donors (once again ironic as these donors are necessarily our enemy according to the "Sri Lankan Lion"), the 13th Amendment will be implemented, but in the most diluted way possible so as not to compromise the power of the central government.

And this is perhaps why being a Sri Lankan Sinhalese Buddhist, I am not a "Sri Lankan Lion". At the heart of the problem is simply a chauvinist idea held by a majority of Sinhalese, that Sri Lanka is ultimately a land for the Sinhalese. The rural vote base that the present government has, coupled with the Buddhist monks that actively encourage the war despite Lord Buddha's most basic teachings to refrain from violence, will ensure that the Tamil people are not given the autonomy they have craved for so long. The LTTE is a mere manifestation of this ethnic struggle; and the extinction of the LTTE will not be the extinction of the ethnic issue.

But for the "Sri Lankan Lion", Sri Lanka has always been the land of the Sinhalese Buddhists, a view held by the Commander of the Army as well, and with the extinction of the LTTE, there is little to be upset about.

As for me, I do not believe a military victory can ever justify repressing the human rights of the very people you claim to fight for. The end does not justify the means. But I am very much a minority.