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
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Sunday, June 25, 2017
Sri Lanka: BBS, Extremism, Incitement to Violence and a Proposal Again for Rajapaksa Family Rule!
( June 25, 2017, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) We
have an ‘analysis’ of all in one basket. I am referring to Dayan
Jayatilleka’s (DJ) article in The Island (21 June) perhaps incorrectly
titled “The issue is incitement: The BBS, Champika & the Gota
factor.” The ‘family proposal’ does not appear in the title for some
reason. It was previously published in the Colombo Telegraph as two
articles, then they became ‘two in one’ in The Island. Let me try to
dissect.
While ‘extremism’ and ‘incitement to violence’ are not the same, there
is no great wall between the two despite what the author claims.
Extremism from any side could easily evolve into violence or incitement
to violence. It is true that those who paint the BBS or the
behaviour/utterances of Gnanasara Thero as just extremism or equal to
other extremisms, misses the point of ‘incitement to violence.’ But in
political debates all extremisms should be discouraged, condemned or
denounced.
Hate speech and extremism should not be defended under freedom of speech
while only ‘incitement to violence’ is condemned. Punishing is a matter
for the judiciary and the law enforcement. However, we can point it out
or even agitate for it, if it is absent or the law enforcement is
defending the culprits. Freedom of speech entails social
responsibilities. Ultra-nationalism, chauvinism, Islamophobia and
extremism in general breach these social responsibilities. It is true
that any one indulging in such extremist propaganda should not be
punished off hand, unless there is a direct connection to violence or
hate speech. We have hordes of them in our country.
Durban Declaration
DJ says he learned to distinguish the two, ‘extremism and incitement,’
through his experience at the UN and more precisely by chairing the
Intergovernmental Working Group (IWG) on the Effective Implementation of
the Durban Declaration. The Durban Declaration (2001) was ‘Against
Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and related Intolerance.’ It
was titled as such. In that context, it is incomprehensible how come
that a person who chaired the IWG on those issues claims, “Nor is the
main issue Islamophobia. While Islamophobia is in and of itself
reprehensible, what should be focused on is incitement to violence.” In
the Declaration, there is nothing particularly about ‘incitement to
violence’ as the crucial issue, of course because it is a declaration.
But Article 61, highlights Islamophobia as a crucial issue as follows.
- We recognize with deep concern the increase in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in various parts of the world, as well as the emergence of racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas against Jewish, Muslim and Arab communities;
DJ was not only the Chair of the particular IWG in 2008, but also the
Rapporteur of the sessions. The report of the sixth session
(A/HRC/10/82, 26 February 2009) that he has reported does not talk about
such a distinction, while it is true that there were divergent views
and frictions within the discussions and he was admirably trying to
moderate them as far as possible. Most of the debates were on the future
agenda of the IWG, the African Group suggesting five themes as follows
and the EU delegate expressing objections or reservations. “The
suggested themes [were]: (a) effective remedies, recourse, redress,
compensatory and other measures at the national, regional and
international levels to victims of human rights violations resulting
from racism; (b) incitement to racial and/or religious hatred; (c)
racial profiling; (d) restoration of human dignity; (e) racism and
refugees, migrants, asylum-seekers.” This is in paragraph 33 of the
report.
What was proposed in terms of ‘incitement’ was “incitement to racial and/or religious hatred”
which in fact goes against what DJ is suggesting for Sri Lanka. (Or is
he trying to confuse the Sri Lankan readers arrogantly believing they
are ignorant?) It may be the case that he suggested to the EU delegates
(during informal discussions) to isolate ‘incitement to violence,’ but
what appears in the report is not that. If I am mistaken he should
clarify.
Incitement can be for violence or incitement can be for racial or religious hatred,
as the African group seems to have maintained. In the latter case, the
distinction between extremism (ultra-nationalism, xenophobia, racism)
and incitement becomes thinner and thinner. When the African group
proposed the above, their intention was to counter Islamophobia
spreading in Europe; the EU delegate objecting to it.
When ‘incitement’ is linked only to violence, Islamophobia escapes. This
is exactly what DJ is subtly doing in Sri Lanka today. Gnanasara is
culpable, but Asgiriya escapes. To fudge the whole effort, he also
defends all other extremists including himself. The following statement
epitomise his ideology or enterprise.
“It is with this experience and achievement that I make the point that what we should focus upon is not Sinhala and Tamil racism, chauvinism or extremism, but precisely and specifically the incitement to violence, i.e. the rousing of mob violence or individual attacks.”
To him, Sinhala racism, Tamil racism, chauvinism and extremism are all
fine, what is wrong (or should focus upon) is only incitement to
violence and rousing mob violence. He cannot understand the connection.
He cannot or pretend not to understand the cause and effect, or the root
causes behind violence and incitement to violence.
Gnanasara Thera and BBS
Let us take the central issue of Gnanasara Thero (GT) and the BBS. At
present, that is one of the central issues, I agree. Because many Muslim
mosques and shops have been newly attacked. The BBS press briefing
first addressed by Dilanthe Vithanage on 15 June did not categorically
deny that Thero was involved in violence. What he said was “if to some
extent (yamkisi pramnayakate) he was involved, that was because of Champika and Rathana Thero.” He also said, “If he was given some contracts (yam yam conthrath)
those were given by Champika and Rathana Thero for their political
objectives.” Of course, Vithanage was referring to the past and not to
the present. Champika however is clearly implicated.
Even without Vithanage’s revelation, it is well known that Gnanasara was
bred and brought up within the JHU political movement. JHU was/is an
outright ultra-nationalist movement. Gnanasara contested to the Colombo
district as a JHU candidate in 2004 at the parliamentary elections. When
the BBS was formed in 2012, under his leadership it was an offshoot of
the JHU. Therefore, the connection between the BBS’ ‘ethno-religious
fascism,’ and the JHU’s ultra-nationalist extremism is clear. It is not
merely a personal connection but an ideological one. One has led to the
other.
In terms personal patronage for this movement, there have been several
political leaders other than Ranawaka who have patronized and curry
favoured with this movement. Gotabaya Rajapaksa is one who inaugurated
the BBS training academy in Galle in March 2013. He was the Defence
Secretary at that time. When Azad Sally was talking against the BBS, he
was arrested under the PTA in May, two months later. Completely correct
or not, Gotabaya was implicated in the September 2011 demolition of an
Islamic shrine at Anuradhapura. It is well known how he treated
Frederica Jansz in 2012, forcing her to leave the country.
Gotabaya-Champika connection also was very clear those days whatever
happened thereafter. None of these persons could be trusted to lead the
country in the future. While in the opposition or out of power, they may
appear not so extreme, allowing others to do the job. But when they are
in power they almost certainly would emerge as near fascists.
Features of Right-wing Extremism
Writing on ‘Contemporary British Fascism’ (2004),
Nigel Copsey said, “…the extreme right should be viewed as a broad
‘political family’ which possesses an ideology of common constituent
parts.” “Adopting this approach, the core defining features of
right-wing extremism turn out to be: (ultra) nationalism, racism,
xenophobia, anti-democracy and the strong state.” He came to the above
conclusion after investigating 26 definitions and at least half of the
authors agreeing.
It may be all right as an academic exercise to try and distinguish
between different segments of right-wing extremism, including the BBS.
But it is dangerous to do so projecting Sri Lanka’s political future
based on such distinctions. Because our choices should be democratic and
for democracy. It is within such a futile exercise that DJ wants to see
a reformed Gotabaya Rajapaksa, from the position of “Right of Mahinda
and Right of the regime” to a reformed man, saying “Gotabhya is not the
most reactionary, right wing figure in this country.”
The right-wing does not constitute only of ‘ultra-nationalism,’ ‘racism’
or ‘xenophobia.’ It also constitutes the features of ‘anti-democracy’
and ‘advocacy of the strong state.’ Gotabaya qualifies on both counts.
He is a former army man. He was the Defence Secretary even after the end
of the war, culpable for or overseeing many atrocities including
Rathupaswala. As a proposed candidate for the presidency in 2020, his
chances would be extremely dim unless he gets an overwhelming majority
of the Sinhala votes. To obtain such a vote, he logically must align
with ultra-nationalists, racists and xenophobic forces. Anti-Indian
xenophobia is already propagated by his supporters! This is the
impending danger, not necessarily the present government. With these
credentials, it would be an outright scoundrel who could trust him as
“the last best hope to deal with this dangerous phenomenon on incitement
or any of the myriad of other daily crisis.”
DJ has already started this ultra-right-wing campaign. That is why he
has now written on ‘Politics After Asgiriya.’ He is not Alt-Left, but
Alt-Right.
Proposal for Rajapaksa Family Rule!
The present government is undoubtedly weak, lethargic and inefficient.
There are also extremists within it. Economic policies are largely
erroneous and neo-liberal. Many promises given to the people have not
yet been fulfilled. There are no signs of fulfilling them either.
Therefore, there should be a better government at the next election
through the democratic process. There is no need to bring back the past
monsters however. The country should move forward and not backwards. The
present government however has kept the democratic processes moving
whatever the shortcomings. That is the benefit of the 2015 change. The
formation of the Joint Opposition was natural and a good development in
this respect. Whoever the ‘official opposition,’ the government also
should interact with the JO properly in parliament in addition, and
should listen to the just demands of the students and the trade unions.
The danger of DJ’s proposal is not about supporting the JO to come to
power at the next election. But to bring back very clearly a much more
stronger family rule, Gotabaya as the President and Mahinda as the Prime
Minister this time. With such a political science knowledge and
international experience, I cannot understand why such a pathetic
proposal is put forward. The following is his proposal.
“This
is the worst, most dangerous, most unconscionable government I have
seen in my country in my lifetime. Whatever their past and present
errors, only Mahinda as Prime Minister and Gota as President can get us
out of this deep, stinking pit, and put us back on track.”
There is much confusion in this proposal, perhaps guided by emotions and
personal antipathies mixed up with Stalinist upbringing. On the
emotional side, he uses Trumpian terminology to classify the present
government as ‘political evil.’ He is also not sure his personal
vengeance against CBK-Ranil could really be achieved. Therefore, he also
has the second alternative and says, “If Gotabhaya does not or cannot
intervene to stop the spreading cancer, then even more radical methods
of intervention by the people themselves—such as in August 1953— may be
embarked upon.”
He also wants to supplement it with an upsurge not only like Russia in
1917 but also Iran in 1979. Would he promote, in the latter case,
Gnanasara Thero or somebody else emerging as Ayatollah Khomeini in Sri
Lanka? Only the time would say. There are indications of his thinking in
that direction in his recent most article on ‘Politics After Asgiriya.’