Connect with us

Features

Reflecting on Mahinda

Published

on

“These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world… and then we f***** up the endgame.” (Tom Hanks, “Charlie Wilson’s War”)

The day the war ended, I wasn’t quite 17. Our old Isuzu Gemini didn’t have an onboard radio, so on the way home from the exam hall – I had sat for my O Levels – we made do with a portable one. The news was everywhere: over the airwaves and on the streets. People were elated, overjoyed: mountains of kiribath and piles of lunumiris, hordes of youngsters waving one flag after another, greeted us all the way from Wellawatte to Boralesgamuwa. As Wordsworth would have put it, bliss was it to have been alive then, heaven to have been young. Nothing seemed subdued in the air, and nothing could be. For me and pretty much everyone else, Sri Lanka had won. Everything else came later.

My generation was among the last to see the war through to its end, to have been alive to the dangers and the torments that accompanied it from the beginning. We had witnessed successive peace talks, a ceasefire agreement, even a post-tsunami “deal” with the other side. Nothing worked.

When we moved from my old home town to where I am now, politics had reduced to a battle between those who wanted peace and those who wanted war. Among such obtuse divisions shades of grey did not exist: either you voted for the peaceniks – the UNP – or you threw in your lot with the nationalists – the SLFP. I can’t remember the day the latter won the election in 2004, but I do remember the sense of elation among my family: Mahinda Rajapaksa, the populist candidate, had clinched the presidency, defeating the appeasers. Five years later he would help us end the war.

Mahinda was a hero to my family – to an extent to me also – and, for a brief moment right after the war ended, even to those who disliked him. At that moment we defined our enemy, not in crude ethnic terms, but in terms of a ruthless terrorist outfit that preached only fanaticism. We never defined another by what set us apart; only by what brought us together. Call it sentimental nostalgia, but I now remember May 2009 as one of the few times in our recent history from which we could go forward, as one. Leading us all ahead there was Mahinda. How could you dislike the guy?

I never understood the halo many of us painted around him later on. But I understand why they did what they did, turning Mahinda into some kind of deliverer. The man was in, and of, his time in a way none of his predecessors were – barring one. The exception was Ranasinghe Premadasa, who, it must be said, hailed from an altogether more subaltern, and thus depressed, background.

Like Premadasa, Mahinda was receptive to what people expected of him: not as a demagogue and a nationalist, but as a populist and a patriot. Today these words have become anathema to left-liberals and neoliberals. But then they are not bereft of meaning; only leaders conversant with the politics of people, as opposed to the politics of power, can make the people matter and the people count. In this Mahinda may have been, at one level, the successor of Premadasa. No wonder Dayan Jayatilleka, a man who obviously knows what he’s writing, and more importantly what he’s not writing, wrote of both as the two “most courageous, heroic, leaders we elected in my lifetime.”

So the halo a lot of those who supported him painted on him wasn’t entirely unwarranted. And yet – and this is something that needs to be emphasised fairly and squarely – what was so refreshing about Mahinda Rajapaksa wasn’t so much his appeal to a single constituency as his appeal was to every constituency. Put in other words, in the aftermath of the war, he appeared less a narrow nationalist than a pluralist patriot: the sort before whom everyone could become one.

In his declaration about there being no Sinhalese and Tamils, but all being Sri Lankans – the boldest made by a popular president here – lay a philosophy and a way of doing politics that could get the country ahead. When he became the first president to make it a point to speak in Tamil – which no other president no matter how liberal or popular had tried to do – he thus went as far as anyone in his office had to reach out. I often wonder whether such gestures were recognised for what they were, and whether those for whom they were meant grasped their full significance.

Not that it matters now. But it mattered then. The excitement and the exhilaration of those statements, decisions, and gestures, which I doubt were lost on us, were lost on those who could have responded. Instead of acceptance, he and his government got intransigence, a persistent refusal to endorse such gestures. I fail to understand why we crowned him like we did, but I also fail to understand why such sentiments never got reciprocated. Why did they go unnoticed, really?

Tempting as it would be to view it so, the lack of a proper response to these gestures and sentiments was not the only, or even the main, reason for his government’s downfall. Thirty years of war do not end without victors claiming their share of the spoils from the losers. Although the war went on, and continued to be fought, without the victor/vanquished dichotomy, after it ended that dichotomy crept up, doubly so because of a resurgence of Sinhala ultra-nationalism on the one hand, and the perceived defeat of its competitor – Tamil ultra-nationalism – on the other, towards the end of the decade. Yet the defeat of the latter meant that Sinhala ultra-nationalism could no longer thrive. In the absence of an enemy, paraphrasing Voltaire, we need to invent one. Four years later the ultra-nationalists invented one in Alutgama. That fight continues.

At the outset, then, a fatal rupture developed between the imperatives of multi-ethnic populism and the convulsions of mono-ethnic ultra-nationalism. Against that backdrop Mahinda’s government found itself forced to take sides. Sri Lanka witnessed three moments in which it faced a choice between an inclusive, progressive path and a divisive, reactionary one: 1948, 1970, and 2009. In 1948 the choice was made in favour of a compradore bourgeoisie that doubled down as a dependent elite, and in 1970 it was made in favour of a state-led reformist programme that, while laudable, got bogged down in the contradictions of the times in which it came to be enacted. What road would 2009 take?

It’s perhaps the biggest tragedy of my time, my generation, and the generations which followed mine, that the choice made was not the choice that should have been made. Mahinda’s charisma did not, and does not, stem from his pandering to one constituency: his populism, nurtured more by the left than by the right, extended to everyone. As multi-class as it was multi-ethnic, it’s the sort of charisma very few leaders have been endowed with. A Muslim friend from Hambantota – Rajapaksa territory – put that in perspective best: “He was of the South, but not just of the Sinhalese.”

So we know what road we should have taken, just as we know what road we ended up taking. What compelled him to abandon the first road and take the other, whether the forces that prevailed on him to do so profited by their insularity, and how we might have fared had we not listened to those forces, are questions I can’t really answer. All I know was that we had a golden opportunity, the best we ever had and the best we ever got, to forge a new future. The nationalism we should have made use of then should have been more pluralist than exclusivist, more accommodating than assertive. Yet trapped on every front, the then administration gave in to the chauvinists.

My critique of Sinhala ultra-nationalism today has always been that it differs little from the forces of neoliberalism it so strongly opposes: mired in its contradictions, it thrives on internal divisions while offering the feeblest resistance to external pressures. Andre Gunder Frank was not wide off the mark when he observed that “national” (or nationalist) capitalism was no better than its compradore variety. Amidst the resurgence of ultra-nationalism we are witnessing today, a contradiction has hence sprung up between the demonisation of the ethnic Other and an acceptance of an economic model which does not differ, or depart, radically from the sort championed by the previous regime.

We could have changed all this. Yet we did not. I still don’t know why. In Mahinda Rajapaksa we got the kind of deliverer the country was in need of: not a mythical Diyasen Kumara, but a popular unifier nurtured by the left. Today the revival of the nationalist right within not just the government, but also sections of the Opposition, threatens to eliminate everything we achieved in 2009, and everything we could have achieved in the years which followed. That is our tragedy, and the tragedy of all those who helped conclude the war. What pains me is that it did not have to be this way.

 

 



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

‘Silent Majority’ abandoned to Long-suffering in regional conflicts

Published

on

People of the Gaza strip gather to collect food. (Haitham Imad/EPA, via Shutterstock)

With reports emerging that India has attacked some ‘sites’ in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, the question could be posed whether the stage has just been set for yet another costly India-Pakistan military conflict. Sensible opinion in South Asia could only hope that wise counsel would sooner rather than later come to prevail on both sides of the divide and that they would draw back from the brink of full-scale war.

The states concerned ought to know fully well the possible wide-ranging weighty consequences of another regional conflict. It should be plain to see that it would benefit none in the two theatres of confrontation, most particularly the relevant publics or the ‘Silent Majority’.

In fact, in connection with the mentioned initial military attacks, the Pakistani side has gone on record that some civilian lives have been lost. Such losses could burgeon in the event of full scale hostilities. These costs could of course be staggering and unimaginable in the event the nuclear option is resorted to by the sides, going forward.

Accordingly, the hope of the peace-loving world-wide is likely to be that India and Pakistan would give negotiations a chance and resolve their differences peacefully. It would be in the best interests of the world for the champions of peace to join their voices to that of UN chief Antonio Guterres and call on the sides to negotiate an end to their differences.

The utter helplessness and misery of the people of the Gaza ought to drive home afresh the horrors of war. Currently the news is that the Gazans are literally starving to death. Food and other essentials provided by UN agencies are reportedly being prevented by Israel from getting to the hapless people of Gaza. So dire is their situation that concerned quarters are calling on the compassionate worldwide to provide the Gazans with food, water and other essentials voluntarily. This SOS would need to be heeded forthwith.

Accordingly, it could be inferred that most formal arrangements, including those that are generally under the purview of the UN, geared to providing emergency humanitarian assistance to the needy, have, for all intents and purposes, been rendered ineffective in the Gaza. The UN cannot be faulted for this state of things; rather, Israel should be held accountable in the main for it.

The matter of accountability is central to the dramatic slide into lawlessness the world has been experiencing over the past few decades. As could be seen, International Law is no longer fully applicable in the conflict and war zones of the world because it is not being adhered to by many state and non-state aggressors. That the UN is hapless in the face of such lawlessness is plain to see.

We have of course the Middle East wherein International Law has fallen silent for quite a while. How could it be otherwise, when Israeli aggressions are being winked at by the US, for which the policy of backing Israel is almost sacrosanct?

Moreover, under President Donald Trump, it is difficult to see the US changing policy course on the Middle East. Trump made vague promises of bringing peace to the region in the run-up to his reelection but has done nothing concrete by way of peace-making. Consequently, complete lawlessness prevails in the Middle East. US policy towards Israel counts as another example of how the self- interest of US central administrations blinds them to their international obligations, in this case Middle East peace.

However, the commentator could be criticized as being biased if he holds only Israel responsible for what has befallen the Middle East. It has been the position of this columnist that Israel’s security needs should be taken cognizance of by its state and non-state adversaries in the Middle East and acted upon if the basis is to be laid for a durable Middle East peace. Inasmuch as Palestinian statehood must be guaranteed, the same should be seen as applicable to Israel. The latter too enjoys the right to live in a secure state of its own, unopposed by its neighbours.

The Ukraine of today is also sad testimony to the ill consequences of powerful, aggressor states wantonly disregarding International Law and its obligations. Nothing could justify Russia in invading Ukraine and subjecting it to a condition of Longsuffering. Clearly, Ukraine’s sovereignty has been violated and such excesses go to the heart of the current state of ‘International Disorder’. Of course the same stricture applies to the US in relation to its military misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, to name just two such modern examples.

There is no ducking the fact, then, that civilian publics in the mentioned theatres of war and outside, are being subjected to the worst suffering as a consequence of the big powers’ self-aggrandizement schemes and military misadventures. Longsuffering becomes the tragic lot of the people who have nothing to do with such unbridled power ambitions.

One would not be exaggerating the case if he states that civilian publics count for almost nothing in the present ‘International Disorder’. Increasingly it is becoming evident that from the viewpoint of the big powers and authoritarian governments the people are of little or no importance. Considering that self-aggrandizement is of the paramount interest for the former the public interest is coming to be seen as inconsequential.

Consequently, not much of a case could be made currently for the once almost reverentially spoken of ‘Social Contract’. For, the public interest does not count for much in the scrambles for power among the major powers who are seen at the popular level as the principal history-makers.

It is in view of the above that much is expected of India. Today the latter is a ‘Swing State’ of the first importance. Besides being a major democracy, it is one of the world’s principal economic and military powers. It possesses abundant potential to help to put things right in international politics. If there is one state in Asia that could help in restoring respect for International Law, it is India.

Considering the above, India, one believes, is obliged to bear the responsibility of keeping South Asia free of any more long-running, wasting wars that could aggravate the material hardships and socio-economic blights of the region. Thus, India would need to consider it imperative to negotiating peace with Pakistan.

Continue Reading

Features

Memorable happening … Down Under

Published

on

Lyceum swimmers at Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre

Under the Global-Ise Australia Advanced Sports Development Programme, a delegation of 15 swimmers from Lyceum International School, Wattala, had the remarkable opportunity to train and experience high-performance sports development in Melbourne, Australia.

The 10-day programme was carefully curated to offer intensive training, educational exposure, and cultural experiences for the young athletes.

The swimmers underwent specialised training through Swimming Victoria’s elite programme, held at some of Melbourne’s premier aquatic facilities.

Visit to Victorian Parliament

Each day began as early as 5:00 a.m. and continued until 7:00 p.m., ensuring a rigorous and enriching schedule that mirrored the standards of international competitive swimming.

Beyond training, the programme offered a wide array of experiences to broaden the students’ horizons.

Morning training

The tour group explored iconic landmarks such as the Victorian Parliament and the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG), and enjoyed shopping at Chadstone – The Fashion Capital. They also experienced the natural beauty of Victoria with visits to Yarra Valley Chocolaterie & Ice Creamery, and Cardinia Reservoir Park, where they observed kangaroos in their natural habitat.

An academic highlight of the tour was the group’s exclusive visits to three of Australia’s leading universities: the University of Melbourne, Monash University, and Deakin University. These visits aimed to inspire students and showcase the vast educational opportunities available in Australia.

Checking out the scene at Yarra Valley Chocolaterie & Ice Creamery

As part of the cultural immersion, Global-Ise hosted a traditional Australian BBQ at the Tim Neville Arboretum in Ferntree Gully. The students also enjoyed a variety of diverse culinary experiences each evening, further enriching their understanding of local and international food cultures.

The tour concluded with a celebratory dinner at the Spicy Wicket Restaurant, where each participant received a presentation in recognition of their involvement.

Enjoying an Aussie BBQ for lunch

The evening was made especially memorable by the presence of Pradeepa Saram, Consul General of Sri Lanka in Victoria.

Global-Ise Management—Ken Jacobs, Johann Jayasinha, and Dr Luckmika Perera (Consultant from the University of Melbourne)—did a magnificent job in planning and the execution of the advanced sports programme.

Coaches from Sri Lanka presenting a plaque to Global-Ise Management team
Ken Jacobs (centre), Johann Jayasinha, and Dr Luckmika Perera (on the right

Continue Reading

Features

Bright, Smooth Skin

Published

on

Hi! How’s the beauty scene keeping with you?

Phew, this heat is awful but there is nothing that we can do about it.

However, there are ways and means to take care of your skin and I will do my best to help you in every way I can.

Well, this week, let’s go for a Bright, Smooth Skin.

Gram flour (also known as besan) is a traditional skincare ingredient known for its:

*  Natural exfoliating properties.

*  Ability to absorb excess oil.

*  Gentle brightening and tan-removal effects.

*  Suitability for all skin types, especially oily and acne-prone skin.

You will need 01–02 tablespoons gram flour (besan) and rose water, or raw milk, to make a paste.

You could add the following two as optional add-ins: A pinch of turmeric (for extra glow), and a few drops of lemon juice (for oily skin and pigmentation)

Add the gram flour to a small bowl and mix in the rose water (for oily/sensitive skin) or raw milk (for dry skin) slowly.

Stir well to make a smooth, spreadable paste—not too thick, not too runny.

Now apply this mixture, evenly, to your damp face and neck, and let it sit for 5–10 minutes (don’t let it dry completely if you have dry skin).

Gently massage in circular motions using wet fingers—this helps exfoliate.

Rinse off with lukewarm water, and then pat your skin dry.

Use it 02–03 times a week for best results.

Skin Benefits:

*  Removes dirt, sweat, and oil without stripping natural moisture.

* Gently exfoliates dead skin cells, revealing smoother skin.

* Brightens the complexion and fades mild tanning.

* Helps clear clogged pores and reduce pimples.

*  Leaves skin fresh and glowing—perfect for humid climates.

Continue Reading

Trending